Lord Trefgarne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have made a recent assessmentof the implementation of Section 295 and Schedule 23 ("Road user charging") of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, implementation of the central London congestion charging scheme, including any extension to the scheme, and associated monitoring are matters for Transport for London and the mayor. The department continues to monitor the impact of the scheme and its development with interest.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, what progress are the Government making generally on road pricing, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred, and, in particular, lorry use charging, especially for foreign lorries, which pay nothing to use our roads. The state of repair of those lorries is awful. The latest VOSA report shows that 42.7 per cent of lorries with trailers stopped by VOSA were unroadworthy. That scandal should be tackled.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, one of the benefits of the congestion charge has been a massive increasein the number of cyclists on the road, which has major environmental benefits. The Department for Transport seems lacking in its promotion of things to do with bicycles, although Transport for London has done a great deal of work. What are the Government doing to educate the Department for Transport in the benefits of bicycling?

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the legal basis on which increasedrates of air passenger duty will apply from1 February 2007.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is well versed on taxation and will recognise that it can produce a dual benefit. It can increase resources for deployment on public transport and other environmentally worthy measures. It can also reduce demand because of the price increase. We estimate that, by 2010, 0.75 million tonnes of carbon per year will have been reduced through the air passenger duty.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I rise to speak to the government amendments to Clauses 1 and 37. In so doing I wish to acknowledge the thoughtful and incisive contributions made in Committee by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady O'Cathain, and my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, Lord Borrie and Lord Whitty. I am grateful to noble Lords for the constructive way in which they have conducted all our deliberations on the Bill.
	We have considered carefully the points made in respect of the functions to be accorded to the Scottish Consumer Council, the Welsh Consumer Council and the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee. The amendments to Clause 1 are designed to provide the territorial committees with the power to exercisethe key functions of the council and to enable the committees to exercise these functions within their relevant territories. In defining the functions to be given to the territorial committees under this amendment, I believe that we have gone further than some noble Lords may have envisaged in Committee where there was a focus on the core functions described in the Bill: the representative function, the research function and the information function, as provided in Clauses 7 to 9. This amendment provides these functions to the Scottish Consumer Council and the Welsh Consumer Council, and in addition provides the committees with the powers of investigation set out in Clauses 10 to 15 inclusive, the power to prepare and publish reports in Clause 16, the function of providing advice, information and guidance in Clause 18, the power to co-operate and give assistance in Clause 20, the power to undertake voluntary activities in Clause 21 and the supplementary powers set out in Clause 22. Information gathering powers in Clauses 23 to 26 are also provided to these territorial committees.
	The powers given to the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee also extend to the core functions described in the Bill: the representative function, the research function and the information function as provided in Clauses 7 to 9. In addition, the committee is provided with the powers of investigation in Clauses 10 and 11, the function of referring matters to the Postal Services Commission in Clause 14, the function in Clause 15 of making investigations into public post offices, the power to make reports in Clause 16, the provision of advice, information and guidance contained in Clause 18, the power to co-operate and give assistance in Clause 20 and the supplementary powers and information functions described in Clauses 22 to 25.
	The committee will also be able to exercise the functions of the council under Clause 21—voluntary activities—in relation to relevant postal services in Northern Ireland. In addition, the amendments provide for the council to facilitate or improve co-ordination between the council and the Scottish and Welsh Consumer Councils and the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee by imposing restrictions or conditions on the territorial committees' exercise of functions and giving directions relating to the exercise of any function to the territorial committees.
	There are very few instances where the functions of the council are not exercisable by the territorial committees and I should like to take this opportunity to explain to your Lordships' House why this should be. First, in Clauses 4 to 6 there is an obligation for the council to provide a statutory forward work programme and annual report. It is anticipated that the territorial committees will have a very important role in the production of both the forward work programme and the annual report, which will incorporate their proposed activities and reported activities as appropriate and as agreed with the council. Consequently the statutory requirement would remain unchanged by the amendment.
	Secondly, Clause 19 imposes a duty on the council to enter into co-operation agreements with designated bodies, including the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Services Consumer Panel and the Ofcom Consumer Panel. We do not consider it necessary or desirable to replicate that requirement for each territorial committee because it would be unduly cumbersome to have a multiplicity of co-operation arrangements.
	Thirdly, there is a function of the council in Clause 26 to provide information where required to do so by an authorised person. I hope noble Lords will agree that it would be onerous for the person making the request to be required to make the request for information to the council and each of its territorial committees. For that reason we have not provided that function to the territorial committees.
	The amendments include a proposal to divide Clause 1 into two clauses for the sake of clarity, which I hope will find favour with noble Lords. Amendment No. 42 represents a consequential change to Clause 37 reflecting the proposed allocation of functions to the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee. I beg to move.

Lord De Mauley: I return to this amendment following Committee, in part because I am still not wholly satisfied with the Minister's answer, and in part because I believe that getting sole traders and small businesses involved in the context of the National Consumer Council will be a huge challenge. That challenge should be addressed by the provisions of the Bill.
	It is important to remember that our existing legislation has not normally treated sole traders and small businesses as consumers. The Federation of Small Businesses raised its concerns in 2002 in its response to the European Commission's Green Paper on consumer protection regarding the then forthcoming unfair commercial practices directive. It raised many detailed objections to the directive, the main theme of which was that the Green Paper failed to understand the pressures faced by small businesses, and that it overestimated their capacity. It stated that,
	"we are frightened that failure to include small businesses within the EU definition will lead to the removal of these protections at the national level".
	Small businesses rely on postal services and, especially, on energy provision. Where they are let down by their providers, their whole businesses can be threatened. Energywatch and the Federation of Small Businesses have launched a campaign to get better treatment of small businesses as consumers. I am concerned that if small businesses are not specified as consumers, they will be neglected.
	The Minister's response to the amendment in Committee did not quite answer the point. He merely stated:
	"The definition of consumer in the Bill deliberately does not exclude any class of consumer".—[Official Report, 18/12/06;col. GC170.]
	Yet I am sure he will acknowledge that merely omitting a reference to sole traders and small businesses as not themselves covered by the Bill does not endorse them as consumers. The implication of what he said is that he is concerned about specifically including them on grounds that to do so would beg the question of who else must then be specified. But who else would need to be specified?
	We have the perfect opportunity to clarify in the Bill the inclusive nature of the NCC. It is vital that sole traders and small businesses are aware that they are considered entirely valid users of Consumer Direct. We highlighted in Committee how important it is for small business and sole traders to correct problems such as energy disconnection as soon as possible for the sake of their businesses and livelihoods.
	I hope that the Minister will accept the principle behind the amendment. If he cannot accept it in its present form, I hope that he will come back at Third Reading with a form of words, perhaps with an enabling definition, which would make this clear to both the NCC and the sole-trader and small-business consumer. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I question the usefulness and desirability of the amendment. Indeed, I am rather surprised that the Opposition have brought it forward again on Report in more or less the same form as it was in Grand Committee. When the amendment was moved in Grand Committee bythe noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, she said, as did the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, today, that it was intended to ensure that sole traders and small businesses are considered consumers for the purposes of the National Consumer Council. However, even at glance, it can be seen that the amendment is not confined to sole traders and small businesses; it is wide enough to cover the largest of corporations, whether they are ICI or Tesco, buying things for their own business.
	I am surprised that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, which today includes the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who is a distinguished former chairman of the NCC, consider that the National Consumer Council should spend any of its time in looking after the interests of our major corporations, which are surely well capable of looking after themselves through their adequate legal staff and so on. I wonder whether their intention to assist small businesses and sole traders is helpfully improved by the broad wording of the amendment.
	Clause 2 defines "consumer" as,
	"a person who purchases, uses or receives , in Great Britain, goods or services".
	We all know that in law a "person" includes bodies corporate or corporate persons so, whether a small business is a partnership or incorporated as a company, it is a consumer when it purchases goods. The disadvantage of the amendment is that including especially words to demonstrate that businesses are consumers as well would encourage the National Consumer Council to consider their needs in buying goods and services as at least equal to those of the man or woman in the street purchasing goods in all the manifold ways available to us. That is not an appropriate function for the NCC.
	Many small businesses, although they are far less able to help themselves than a major corporation, belong to trade associations. One very often hears them talking on the radio and elsewhere on the interests of small businesses, whereas the ordinary man or woman in the street does not have, as an ordinary consumer, any such trade association except for any voluntary bodies that they may join, such as Which?, the Consumers' Association or the National Consumer Council.
	This is an unnecessary and undesirable amendment, and I hope that it is not pursued to a Division.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I declare an interest as a sole trader and member of the Federation of Small Businesses. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for raising this point, although we have not added our name to the amendment, for some of the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, such as reservations about the size of the business and so on.
	Between Committee and Report a problem I have had as a sole trader has arisen—quite fortuitously, in the light of this debate, as it has put into sharp focus the sort of problems that occur. Over a year ago I started my small business, and it took a year for the electricity supplier to resolve who was the electricity supplier, because although we had applied veryclearly to a supplier, the bill had not been switched to our account. When we finally got a bill after14 months, it was large enough to put a business under.
	The Federation of Small Businesses is very helpful in such situations in giving advice across the board, but how the NCC will work with such organisations is crucial. Very small businesses are as vulnerable as individual consumers. Very often, a sole person working in a business is pushed for time to sort out such thorny problems. The noble Lord has raised an important issue, and it would be useful if the Minister could explain how he envisages the provisions working for smaller businesses.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for tabling the amendment and enabling us to discuss this issue once again. Clause 3 defines "designated consumers" as consumers of mains electricity and mains gas and postal services, and provides for the future addition of water consumers in England and Wales to that category of consumers. The clause also provides powers for the Secretary of State to remove classes of consumers from the "designated consumers" category.
	The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an order designating water consumers as designated consumers from the beginning, although we have said that we will consult in 2008 on whether to extend the Bill's provisions to water. The second effect of the amendment would appear to be that the Secretary of State would be obliged to remove some designated consumers from the list in subsection (1), but the amendment does not say in which way and when that duty must be exercised. It is difficult to discern the intention behind the effect of the amendment on subsection (2)(b), despite the points made by the noble Baroness.
	The powers of the Secretary of State underClause 3 permit the possibility of incorporating the water sector in England and Wales in these new arrangements at some point in the future. We wish to retain that flexibility, although I accept that some noble Lords have expressed firm views that the water sector ought to be included from the beginning. The decision to consult in 2008 on whether to include water was taken following the public consultation. The circumstances under which consumers would cease to be designated depend entirely on the market. It would need to be clear that designation was no longer required, after consultation with the council, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and others.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the amendment would replace the existing requirement on the NCC to publish its forward work programme every year with one requiring it to publish the forward work programme every third year. That is appropriate for several reasons. While it is important that the NCC is alert to the rapid changes in the consumer world—and I have every confidence that that will continue to be the case, given its new status—I remain to be convinced that that requires a forward work programme every year. A common criticism of organisations in both the public and private sectors is their "short-termism" and failure to plan properly for the long term. The amendment seeks to put that right.
	Furthermore, it is important not to underestimate the time, effort and money that go into the production of a full forward work programme. Noble Lords will be aware of how debilitating a constant publication deadline would be, when an organisation could better spend its time working on its core purposes. What is more, the Government recognise this in both local government and mainstream government agencies. Local development schemes require councils to set out policy every three years, on a rolling scheme, and the police authorities set out three-year strategic plans. A three-year plan allows time to produce a report, while ensuring that planned work can be budgeted for much more efficiently.
	In Committee, the Minister's words were most encouraging. He stated:
	"It is normal practice to provide indicative budgets for three years ahead to aid planning and provide certainty".—[Official Report, 18/12/06; col. GC 174.]
	If budgets need to be planned under a three-year framework to provide certainty, it is surely somewhat illogical for the programme of work to operate on any other basis.
	Clause 6 requires the NCC to produce an annual report that informs the Secretary of State and Parliament of the council's activities within the year, but I do not see why it is necessary for the NCC to do both these things on a yearly basis. I believe that it would be far more fruitful to the NCC to enjoy some flexibility and discretion in carrying out its duties to enable it to focus on the task of championing the consumer. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I largely agree with my noble friend Lord O'Neill and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, but there is another dimension to this. I do not think that the new NCC, any more than its three predecessor organisations, would have any difficulty in preparing annual work plans. Those organisations do them now and they have a corporate plan along the lines set out just now by the noble Baroness. So I do not think that planning is the issue, but the finances could be.
	In particular, we have to bear in mind that this is not simply a question of a grant in aid from the DTI in the normal sense of general taxation, but of levies on designated consumers, which a large part of Clause 4 deals with. It is important not only that the new NCC knows that it has more than a year ahead, barring accidents, but also that the regulated industries know what they are expected to pay for those three years ahead. So it is sensible to deal with the finances on a three-year basis from that point of view, as well as from the point of view of general security of outlook. But, so far as concerns the planning, the wording of the Bill is perfectly okay.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 8, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall.
	Both amendments seek to strengthen the new council's sustainable development objectives and, I believe, are intended to have the same effect. Having listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee, my amendment follows the precedent of Section 35(1) of the Water Act 2003, which inserts a new Section 27A(12) into the Water Industry Act 1991. This section places a duty on the Consumer Council for Water to perform its powers and duties in the manner it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Amendment No. 7 places an equivalent sustainable development requirement on the new National Consumer Council; the terminology used is slightly different, as the new council has "functions".
	The term "functions" is defined in Clause 40 as including powers and duties. Such functions include, for example, the representative function underClause 7, the research function under Clause 8 and the information function under Clause 9; the objective does not only relate to the internal operations of the council, for example. Both amendments therefore require the council to exercise its functions in the manner it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Both amendments are intended to have the same effect, hence only one of them is required, and Amendment No. 7 is the preferred option. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for moving somewhat on my Amendment No. 8. We have tabled an amendment of our own to highlight that the Government could move further. I doubt that the NCC feels that the government amendment gives enough emphasis to the extreme importance of the sustainability duties.
	The NCC's recent work, for example, has clearly had a significant effect. A while ago, my honourable friend Norman Baker published How Green Is Your Supermarket?.The answer for all was, "Not at all"—the word "green" never crossed their minds. The NCC recently published a report called Greening Supermarkets, which addressed a wide range of issues and encouraged supermarkets to start to take action. We have seen headlines about supermarkets vying with each other to prove their green credentials, but they are still far from green. The Government will know that among the issues that still hang over how green a supermarket can ever be are the number of car journeys made to and from it and the amount of food being trucked up and down Britain's roads. However, the issues raised by the NCC's report have been immensely influential and underline how such a body can help consumers as a whole to encourage suppliers to change completely how they think about such issues.
	The Government are resisting my amendment, which requires the NCC to,
	"develop policies and discharge its duties so that it contributes".
	It is much firmer than the Government's amendment, which leaves it to the NCC to judge. So if push came to shove and the NCC was not exercising its functions in that manner—a scenario I cannot envisage when it is under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty,—and sustainability did not seem to be a big issue for it, how would the Government judge whether the council was doing enough? We know from debates on this matter that climate change will not go away. It is bound to be important, yet the pulls on the NCC may not always be about it; they may be about price. That is where some of the biggest tensions will come from, especially in the field of energy, where there will be tension between maintaining as low a price as possible and some microgeneration issues—I shall not go down that path. How will the Government ensure that,despite their somewhat strengthened amendment, sustainability will be at the heart of what the NCC does?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, when speaking to the two amendments, asked what was the Government's intention. Amendment No. 7, in my name, would ensure that the council exercised its functions, including the core functions in Clauses 7 to 9, in a manner that it considers is best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. We think that our amendment strengthens the clause. The term "functions" is used, as it is consistent with the drafting in the rest of the Bill and covers powers and duties.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the functions of the NCC. The council is subject to challenge if its functions are not carried out. My advice is that the council is also accountable through its annual report. I will write further to the noble Baroness to clarify further the point.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, AmendmentNo. 9 would place a duty on the NCC to include in its annual report details about the most frequent complaints from consumers about post and energy for the year in question, and make recommendations, should it see fit, for regulated energy and post companies to change their practices. I return to this amendment from Committee as I believe that it would support and underpin the merger of Postwatch and Energywatch at what could be one of its weakest points.
	The amendment would complement the duty that we seek to place on redress schemes in Amendment No. 74, which would ensure that all suppliers of services had effective internal complaints handling procedures. We will be able to go into further detail on that point in due course. The amendment would enable the NCC fully to implement its new duty of providing insight into consumer affairs and as a provider of a complaints signposting service under Consumer Direct. That is particularly important in the light of the services the NCC will be covering. Postal and energy services are essential to all consumers, especially the most vulnerable. The impending closure of thousands of post offices highlights that the consumer will soon need assistance more than ever before.
	This addition to the annual report would be a simple task for the NCC to perform. Energywatch has informed us that, as it keeps records of all the complaints it receives as a matter of course, it would simply be a matter of pulling together statistics and displaying them in a suitable form. Page 8 of the Energywatch annual report shows that very well.
	As I think the Minister has pointed out, Clause 44 already places a duty on the NCC to publish statistics on complaints, but not on any regular basis. The amendment puts complaints statistics, the most transparent insight into consumer relations with providers, at the heart of the NCC's self-evaluation.
	Complaints demonstrate better than any poll the attitude of the consumer and how successfully providers are running their services. The amendment provides a low-cost, consumer-driven addition to the way in which the NCC will communicate through its annual report. It will also place complaints at the centre of how the NCC evaluates its own work. I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I understand clearly the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that the council should be required to fulfil its functions as provided by the Bill. There is no real difference between us on that point, but the amendment would remove the council's discretion in exercising its key functions. The council would be required to make representations to government and others, to undertake research,to facilitate the provision of information and advice to consumers, and to use its general powers of investigation. The council already has the flexibility to do all or any of these things, but it is not possible under the Bill to require it to do any particular thing without defining precisely what must be done and when. That is why the clause is drafted as it is.
	I hope that noble Lords will acknowledge that the Bill's key purpose is to provide better and even more effective consumer representation to create a new body with important functions that go beyond those undertaken by the current National Consumer Council. The question is not whether the functions of the new council should be outlined in the Bill, or even whether the council should be sure to undertake the powers and duties represented by these functions; rather, it is a question of whether we should attempt to require the council to undertake all the functions at the same time in perpetuity, or whether we should set out the main functions of the council and leave it to determine how and when these functions should be exercised, according to the priority need and in accordance with its forward work programme. That is the position that the Government have taken.
	The council will need to consult on its forward work programme, which will provide all interested parties with the opportunity to submit ideas for action and views on how the council should undertake its functions for the period ahead. In its annual report, the council will need to report on progress on any projects described in that forward work programme, which is a good example of transparency.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, with Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16, we turn toClause 11 on vulnerable customers. The definition of vulnerable is given in Clause 11(2), which states:
	"For this purpose a person is 'vulnerable' if the Council is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect that person to pursue the complaint on that person's own behalf".
	My amendment seeks to expand our discussion in Committee. Of course, energy consumers in particular would be moving to be looked after by the NCC. Will the Minister expand on the Government's understanding of who would be considered vulnerable? I believe that there is a gap between people who are considered vulnerable under the definitions in the Energy Act and the Water Act and the definition in this Bill. I wonder whether those vulnerable people are being downscaled. A person might be able to pursue the complaint, but he or she might be very ill for a short period, as in the example that I gave in Committee, which I will not repeat now. We believe that the council should have particular regard to vulnerable people. The purpose of this small group of amendments is to explore how seriously the Government are taking this issue. I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 seeks to extend the category of vulnerable consumers who can be aided by the council in the investigation of their complaints to "otherwise disadvantaged consumers". I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for raising this issue. Again, I do not think that there is any real difference between us on the question of who should be aided by the council in the investigation of their complaints. I consider that it is important that those who are most in need of assistance should be able to turn to the council for support and guidance.
	For that reason we have deliberately not sought to categorise those who constitute vulnerable consumers in the Bill. Our understanding of what makes for vulnerability develops and changes over time and we should be careful not to preclude any particular group of consumers from the possibility of assistance now or in the future. The Bill leaves it to the council to consider who should be regarded as vulnerable. Clause 11(2) states that,
	"a person is 'vulnerable' if the Council is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect that person to pursue the complaint on that person's own behalf".
	The addition of the words "otherwise disadvantaged" does not add materially to the consideration. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is the best way forward to meet possible future needs.
	Turning to the other amendments in this grouping, Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, together these have the effect of requiring the council to investigate complaints by vulnerable designated consumers and to provide advice or to make representations on behalf of the consumer. I would suggest to noble Lords that the interests of the most vulnerable consumers will be best served by permitting the council to exercise discretion as to which complaints by consumers need to be supported, and where the council sees a need to provide support, which means of support would be best in the circumstances.
	I believe that the council should be able to use its judgment to define the groups of consumers who need help and to develop and refine that view to meet new or emerging circumstances. The council should have the discretion to decide how best to provide support for vulnerable consumers. It is important that the council should be able to determine how and when its important functions in respect of vulnerable consumers should be exercised according to the need and best use of its resources.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17 I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. These amendments supplement and expand the scope of the obligation on the council to investigate complaints relating to disconnection of gas or electricity supplies. First, they extend the obligation to investigate complaints of consumers who are threatened with disconnection in addition to those whose supply has already been disconnected or, having been disconnected, are experiencing difficulties in securing reconnection. Secondly, they extend the obligation to cover the investigation of complaints of those consumers who use prepayment meters where the meter, the means of charging the meter or the prepayment meter facilities which enable the consumer to purchase credit for the meter, have failed and the consumer is unable to obtain a supply.
	I believe that these enhancements are important and represent a positive and practical response to advice we have received from Energywatch and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, made the point most persuasively in Committee, while the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and my noble friend Lord O'Neill also contributed to the debate on this important issue. As a result I am glad to be able to bring forward these amendments which I believe will address the structural issue of the scope of the new council's remit in this crucial area of potential consumer detriment. They will also provide the council with the obligation to extend its advice and support to consumers with prepayment meters and those who are threatened with disconnection.
	I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise once more the importance we attach to retaining the considerable skills and expertise of Energywatch staff in the transition to the new arrangements. They will clearly have a major role to play in the success of the new council. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments, which meet many of our concerns in this area.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I support the amendments. They make it clear that all issues concerning cut off of supply—whether through a threat of disconnection or a failure somewhere else in the system—will be treated in this way. I simply make the point that I might have made on the previous group of amendments that these are the kind of complaints that would fall to the new National Consumer Council. I know that Energywatch takes the view that there is a wider set of priority complaints over and above those dealing with disconnection or failure of supply. At some point it will need to be made clear what boundaries will be considered by the National Consumer Council, by the normal information function of Consumer Direct or by the companies themselves in the first instance, and, if they fail, by the ombudsman system.
	It would be helpful if such clarity were placed on the Postwatch side of the equation so that the new structures and consumers can be clear where each form of complaint will in future fall.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, the amendment seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish any reports that are submitted to him by the National Consumer Council. It seems only right that reports from the National Consumer Council, which will be a partially publicly-funded body and provide services to the consumer through Consumer Direct, should be accessible to the public.
	In Committee the Minister said that, in some cases, it would not be appropriate to publish reports from the National Consumer Council and that there could be cases where reports from the National Consumer Council were not,
	"of wider interest or relevance".—[Official Report, 9/1/07;col. GC 54.]
	I cannot see how reports from a council dealing with national consumer matters would not be of some interest to some consumers. The Minister noted publication costs. Surely if a report is published for the Secretary of State there cannot be great expense incurred in merely attaching a link to that report to the NCC website.
	I have not been convinced by the Government's refusal to allow the publication of all NCC reports. This is a matter of transparency for the consumer and of public accountability. I was worried by the Minister's words that the Secretary of State and the National Consumer Council would between themselves decide what was appropriate information to give to the public. That does not seem to be the best way for a champion of consumers to operate. I hope the Minister can give a more substantial reason than publication costs, which I contend would be non-existent, and the supposed relevance or not of reports. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, because the amendment obviously seeks transparency, one feels very much in favour of it in principle. However, one should put the amendment into context. The National Consumer Council is required by other provisions in the Bill to publish its annual reports and its forward work programmes. The noble Baroness did not refer to Clause 16, which immediately precedes the clause with which we are now dealing, under which the council may prepare a report on any matter within its function and may publish the report. Some of the noble Baroness's remarks would be applicable to Clause 16 because it provides that the National Consumer Council may publish reports of its own volition on matters it has itself chosen to consider. The logic of her argument suggests that if that report is of interest to consumers nationally it ought to be published.
	Leaving that aside, she has alerted on Clause 17, under which the NCC is required to report on "any matter" that the Secretary of State specifies, and the Secretary of State may publish any report under that clause. The noble Baroness seeks to have the word "may" altered to "must". Surely the NCC itself is free to publish a report on any matter it considers, whether it considers it of its own volition or at the request of the Secretary of State. Perhaps I am making a legalistic point to the Minister. I hope I am right about it, and that the power of the council to publish any report under Clause 16 is not confined to that clause, but that the council could publish a report as it wishes if that has been requested by the Secretary of State under Clause 17. I hope I am correct that the NCC is entitled to publish any report on anything it studies, whether at the request of the Secretary of State or not.
	The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would be unduly burdensome by requiring the Government, at the taxpayer's expense, to publish a report that neither the Government nor the National Consumer Council thought was of sufficient interest to justify publication. There must be some situations where a report is not worthy of publication simply because the work that has been done demonstrates that there is no problem where previously it was thought that there was.
	I fear that the amendment might inhibit the use by the Government of the power to seek the help of the NCC on matters relating to consumer interests. Surely the last thing we want is for the Government to feel inhibited or that it had better not risk asking the NCC for a report because of some compulsory obligation to publish that report in any circumstances and at whatever cost. I doubt the value of this amendment.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Amendment No. 25 relates to Clause 17 and to the actions that fall to the Secretary of State in this respect. I was grateful for the opportunity to debate this amendment in Committee. From that debate, it is clear that the intention behind the amendment is essentially the need for transparency in the Government's dealings with the new council and the importance for the new council to maintain its independence. I confirm our wholehearted support for those intentions.
	As I explained in Committee, Clause 17 gives the Secretary of State the power to require the council to prepare and submit reports on any matter, permitting the Secretary of State to call on the expertise of the council to prepare and submit a report on issues that are judged important enough to the consumer interest to warrant further attention. Such a report would be for the purpose of reaching a decision on what further action, if any, was needed on the issue. We envisage that such a need could arise where the issues in question have not been identified in the council's consultation on its forward work programme.
	The effect of the amendment would be to place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish all the reports submitted by the council under this clause irrespective of whether or not they are of wider interest or relevance, a point rightly made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Having requested a report from the council, the Secretary of State would take into account any recommendations made on how best to progress the particular issue and would work closely with the council and others in coming to decisions about what would be appropriate in each circumstance. The current drafting allows for the discretion needed for that to happen.
	On the issue of the independence of the new council, particularly in response to my noble friend Lord Borrie, I confirm that Clause 16 enables the council to prepare and publish reports on any matter within the scope of its functions, while Clause 18(2) enables it to publish advice and information about consumer issues if it thinks publication will promote the interests of consumers. Those powers allow the council to take separate action in the interests of the consumer, or indeed in the interests of transparency, should it consider that appropriate. While I am sympathetic to the amendment, I believe we meet all the substantive points raised.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am told that because we are on Report, I may be breaking a rule. In that case I shall use the record instead.
	I was chilled by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I thought, "What am I listening to? I'm listening to the National Consumer Council being changed from the body it is: brave and strong and able to publish its reports as it has done all these 25 to30 years, not hindered by the Government in any way, fully funded by government but free to choose its work and to report as it wished". Then I heard it said that the Secretary of State and the NCC will between them decide when things are published. All of this shows how important the amendment is. We should use the word "must". The National Consumer Council is being tied up in these words. I worry when I hear "appropriate", "discretion", "drafting". I worry that the National Consumer Council is being subsumed by a great, big body on which lies the Secretary of State's hand, stopping it doing what it wishes to do. The provision does not sound clear or transparent. It does not sound like what we want the National Consumer Council to be.
	I am sure that the Minister has thought carefully and been well advised by his civil servants on how he should respond to me at this stage. I do not wish to divide the House on this point but I am disappointed by the answers. I was particularly disappointed by the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is very clear. We propose that the merger of the Consumer Council for Postal Services should be postponed until at least 2010. We are specific about the reasons why we are moving this amendment. Nobody who has listened to the debates in your Lordships' House and another place and paid attention to the consultation that has gone on across the country can doubt that both the Post Office network and the Royal Mail are in disarray. Four thousand post office branches have closed since Labour came to power in 1997, on top of the 3,500 post offices and sub-post offices closed during the period of the last Conservative Government. On14 December, the Government announced plans for Post Office restructuring, which they expect to lead to the closure of a further 2,500 branches by 2009.The consultation on those proposals goes on until8 March.
	We are aware that one difficulty that the Post Office network has suffered is the phasing out of the Post Office card account, on which many pensioners rely to receive their state pension and on which thousands of branches depended to keep them in business. On 14 December, in the face of a huge outcry, the Government backed down and announced a replacement for the card account. It is a matter of knowledge for your Lordships that in recent years the Government have directly or indirectly overseen the Post Office network losing TV licences, vehicle excise duty and passport authentication work.
	I do not need to go on, as this is not a debate about the decline of the Post Office network, but that decline is highly relevant to the amendment that stands in my name and that of my noble friend. As for the Royal Mail, noble Lords will be aware that a significant loss of business occurs almost every week, now that it has lost its monopoly in a number of areas in the delivery of postal services. We have the benefit through the pages of the financial press of seeing the dispute going on between Allan Leighton, chairman of the Royal Mail network, and the Government about whether they will permit proposals for any form of share issue to Post Office workers or any form of shares sell-off in the Royal Mail network.
	Against that background my noble friend Lady Miller and I believe that this is not the time to interfere with the very effective method of consumer consultation which is in place as we speak. We wonder what is the point of transferring en bloc the expertise in the Consumer Council for Postal Services to the new consumer council. If the people with the skills necessary to perform the very effective job done by that organisation over the past few years are to be made redundant, there will be a significant loss of effectiveness over the next three years—which in the public's eye will be an absolutely crucial period for the future of the Post Office network and Royal Mail. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for tabling this amendment. I again apologise to your Lordships' House that I was not able to speak to it at an earlier stage as I was speaking at a conference in Nottingham.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will well know that for six years since 2000, when he was a Minister responsible for rural matters, I have expressed my concerns about the future of post offices. I share the concerns that have been expressed on that issue. Part of the Bill is concerned with redress. Consumers want things to go right. Today, through no fault of the railway company concerned, I had the most horrendous journey getting here. A fire on a freight train outside Berwick totally blocked the line and it will be blocked for 24 hours due to the nature of the cargo on that train. I should say in fairness to the railway company that it was very good and made arrangements for some passengers to be transported via the west coast line. In that context it is important that we do not water down the Bill's new provisions. I am particularly concerned about the part that concerns the postal services. I have made various rail journeys back and forth to Scotland. I had a difficult journey going up on Sunday as I was delayed three times, which was the railway company's fault. However, the second occasion on which I experienced difficulty was certainly not its fault.
	The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made various points on post offices, but I want to comment on the situation from a slightly broader perspective. As the practice on Report is to examine Ministers' responses, I want to highlight the Minister's response and to explore whether we are happy with it and therefore confident about where it will take us in the future. As the Minister indicated clearly in Grand Committee:
	"Postal services consumers will also benefit from the introduction of redress schemes".
	But we want to ensure that we enhance, and certainly do not detract from, the service that is offered by the new consumer council.
	The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, touched on the number of post offices that are likely to close. I share his concern. The Minister also stated in Grand Committee that,
	"99 per cent of the population will be within three miles of an outlet".—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. GC 60.];
	that is, a post office outlet. However, in order to achieve that percentage, are not some of the most rural and remote post office outlets more likely to be closed in the future cuts so that the Government can achieve their target of having 99 per cent of people living within three miles of an outlet? Having travelled down through the country today, I am aware that some very remote areas will be in great jeopardy of losing their outlets. Will the Minister clarify the response that he gave in Committee as I do not think that he responded to that point?
	My next point was raised by colleagues. How will the Government ensure that the most vulnerable people in the remotest areas who have the greatest difficulty accessing these outlets will continue to be able to do so? I take up the point made about the squeeze on the Post Office bank card, which, as we have heard, has been overturned temporarily. But who will fight that corner in the longer term? I understand that the National Consumer Council will deal only with complaints; it will not set strategy. Perhaps the Minister can answer my earlier question in that regard. I refer him to the setting up of the Commission for Rural Communities. When that announcement was made I assumed that the Commission for Rural Communities would be the watchdog that would ensure that the rural voice and people's concerns about the closure of post offices were heard. I was desperately disappointed that that was not heard in the national press.
	I am trying to get the Minister to respond to some of the comments he made in Committee. I ask him to clarify whether the council is going to deal just with an individual complaint or whether it will be able to look over the longer term at the repercussions of government decisions and the Royal Mail's decisions on squeezing post offices. Having read carefully through the Committee stage, that is not at all clear. I seek clarification from the Minister on those points which were debated in Committee but not clarified to my satisfaction. I am sorry that I was not here to raise the matter at the time.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, but I draw exactly the opposite conclusion on what should appear in the Bill. It seems to me that the problems of the Post Office have not been resolved by dealing with them in isolation from everything else that happens to rural areas. The whole rationale of the Bill is to create a trans-sectoral organisation which is able to bring expertise from other markets into markets such as the post office and the energy market, and to use the expertise in those markets to create more generic solutions to consumer problems. The longer you delay the establishment of those arrangements—and we are already putting water back until after the initial establishment of the arrangements—the longer it will take for that new organisation, the new consumer council, to achieve that level of strength and influence in general decision-making.
	On rural post offices, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I have been very much concerned with the issue of services for rural areas. So has the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who is just about to contribute to the debate. Post offices have been dealt with in a silo, entirely separately from the concerns of Defra and of the rural community more widely. Post offices are but one of the losses of services, both public and private, in rural areas. The losses have taken place partly as a result of market changes and demography and partly as a result of government decisions over recent years. It is much better that the issue is placed in that wider context, with an influential body that can influence government policy in a wide range of areas, rather than in the narrow area of departmental Post Office sponsorship by the DTI. That is what I see the new National Consumer Council doing.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I think that the new National Consumer Council is primarily about strategy and issues of broad concern to consumers and not so much about individual complaints. In this wider context, the strategy on the Post Office network can best be dealt with by a larger, more all-embracing body. If we put back the Post Office consideration until 2010, as is suggested by the amendment, we will fall short of achieving the Bill's objectives in a relatively short timetable. On the immediate issue of the current review of rural post offices, Postwatch is already setting up the way in which that will be conducted. It needs to get expertise from the National Consumer Council and the Commission for Rural Communities to broaden the base of that review. It can go on; it will have started by the time the new organisation reaches its vesting date, and it will continue thereafter. It is a ring-fenced process that is dealt with somewhat separately from the rest of Postwatch's activities. Therefore, it will not be jeopardised by creating the new organisation. Clause 15 specifically puts a requirement on the new council to conduct an assessment of the network of rural post offices, in the same way as Postwatch currently has this obligation.
	That responsibility is preserved. The influence on future post offices will be stronger, and the context in which such rural services are delivered will be broadened in a way that, as a whole, ought to benefit the rural consumer and not simply be seen in one dimension depending on the Government's attitude to the Post Office in general. Rural consumers, and indeed urban consumers who have lost their post offices in recent years, will be better protected under this system. The sooner we introduce it, the better it will be.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Razzall. It does not state that the merger shall never take place; it accepts that, in time, that may be the best thing, and the Government have put a strong case for it. I understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that that should happen now. Without in any way doubting his competence to manage the whole process, it is over-optimistic of the Government to expect that to happen at a time of enormous upset in the post office service and at a time when a consultation on the closure programme is underway. Notwithstanding the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says that that process is ring-fenced, however much that is the case, you cannot stop disheartened staff leaving because they do not see a future for them within a new organisation. You cannot stop the expertise leaking out.
	All we are suggesting is a delay until 2010 and that Parliament will have another look at the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who spoke on this issue at Second Reading—I fully understand why she could not be present in Committee—was quite right to say that the Commission for Rural Communities had been pretty silent on this. As she will know, I opposed the setting up of that quango, which can be no more than a voice. However, it is supposed to have direct access to the Prime Minister through its rural advocate and I wonder what he has been saying recently on this issue to the Prime Minister and if it has had any effect at all.
	The amendment will provide a chance for the Post Office reorganisation, as the Government might euphemistically call it, to take place under detailed scrutiny from Postwatch, which it is best placed to deliver because it has been working on this issue for several years. No one can take its place in that regard. Our amendment offers a middle way. We are not saying that the reorganisation should never happen but simply that it should not happen at this time of enormous turbulence for the Post Office, which provides a crucial service for people in rural areas and is equally important for people in suburban and urban areas.
	Finally, noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have raised the issue of the business sector. The business sector has asked me to express its disappointment at the Minister's response on this issue. In particular, a letter stated that,
	"no detailed responses were made about the need to preserve sector-specific expertise and the representation of business interests in the postal sector".
	In rural areas, nothing is more important for small businesses than the postal sector—and that applies equally to the business sector throughout the UK.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the amendment seeksto require the Secretary of State to make an order to abolish Postwatch and to make that order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. Furthermore, the Secretary of State would not be permitted to make the order before 2010.
	I recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that one of the main objectives of the Bill is the creation of a cross-sectoral consumer advocacy body that is stronger than the sum of its parts to address consumer issues that frequently exist across sectors of the economy. The new body must have the critical mass to engage effectively with government, regulators and industry sectors on the basis of expert and informed analysis and have the benefit of being able to draw on experience and expertise from a number of sectors. We recognise that maintaining the existing sectoral expertise in the postal services sector is vital to the success of the new body. We also recognise the importance of this in a sector that has only recently been opened up to competition.
	We had a lively and informative debate in Committee on the principle of merging Postwatch with Energywatch and the National Consumer Council, and, given the extensive prior consultation on this issue, I am not convinced that it is necessary or appropriate to subject the proposal to incorporate Postwatch into the new council to the affirmative resolution procedure at a later date.
	On timing, I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords that the postal services sector needs a strong advocacy body in order effectively to represent consumer interests in the post office network restructuring programme. In recognition of the importance of this issue to consumers, the new council will, under Clause 15, maintain the current function assigned to Postwatch of investigating any matter relating to the number and location of public post offices. Having a strong consumer advocate in the postal services sector, and maintaining the sectoral expertise that Postwatch has built up and which the new council will inherit, are vital to the Government's proposals for a sustainable post office network.
	We believe that delaying the inclusion of Postwatch in the new arrangements for consumer advocacy would merely prolong the period of uncertainty for existing staff and consumers and would increase the likelihood of staff retention problems and departures precisely at the point when Postwatch needs its staff most to feed into the post office network restructuring programme. The amendment would exacerbate the problem and be counterproductive, as it would extend that period of uncertainty, with consequent damage to morale and staff retention.
	After careful consideration, therefore, I am not convinced that a delay in the creation of the new National Consumer Council and the associated abolition of Postwatch would benefit consumers of postal services, who would be faced with a delay in the creation of a stronger consumer advocate, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Whitty, to represent their interests, and redress schemes to provide them with complaints resolution and redress as appropriate. Indeed, a delay might actually be harmful, creating a longer period of uncertainty for the existing staff of Postwatch, which I do not think was the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the recommendations of the independent Casino Advisory Panel. The panel has today published its report, and I should like to thank Professor Crow and his colleagues for their work."Before I turn to the recommendations, I should like to remind the House of the context in which we are allowing new types of casino. Gambling is on the increase. People want to gamble, and technology allows many new forms of gambling. Existing regulation is inadequate and leaves people exposed. So, through the Gambling Act 2005, we have placed the protection of children and other vulnerable people at the heart of gambling regulation for the first time. "Yet if I believed everything I read in the papers about the Gambling Act, I would never have introduced it. So let me make it very clear: Las Vegas is not coming to Great Britain. British casinos will be subject to new controls, the strictest in the world."For example, Las Vegas-style tricks of the trade will not be allowed. There will be no free alcohol to induce more gambling, and there will be no pumped oxygen to keep players awake. It will be a criminal offence to permit a child to enter the casino or the gambling area of the regional casino. All casinos will require staff trained to spot the signs of problem gambling and intervene where necessary. If they do not, they risk losing their licence."It was safe in the knowledge of these protections that we took the decision, in response to demand from local authorities, to allow a limited number of new casinos. Sixty-eight local authorities, representing all the main political parties, subsequently made applications to the panel. The Act allows 17 in total: one regional, eight large and eight small. Because the new casinos will be different from those we have seen before, and because we have listened carefully to the concerns of Members and their constituents, we thought it was right to be cautious."Now I can say this in 50 different languages, but the message would be the same: we cannot allow and will not even consider allowing any further casinos until a proper evaluation over time has been made of the effect of these 17 casinos on problem gambling, and such a decision would require a debate and vote in both Houses of Parliament in any case."We have commissioned a group of academics led by Lancaster University to advise on the methodology for that assessment. The baseline study will be undertaken later this year, once Parliament has approved the new areas. The assessment process will be in place in good time for the opening of the first new casino. The assessment will not be completed until at least three years after the award of the first licence. The work is in addition to the prevalence studies of patterns of gambling, which we are undertaking every three years from 2007. The benchmark prevalence study is currently under way, and the findings will be published this autumn, when the Gambling Act takes effect. The findings of the next prevalence study will not be published until autumn 2010. I therefore wish to make it crystal clear to the House that these safeguards preclude any consideration of further casinos for the lifetime of this Parliament."I am required by the Act to make an order identifying the local authorities where the 17 new casinos should go. So, in October 2005, I established the Casino Advisory Panel, under Professor Stephen Crow. The primary consideration for the panel throughout has been to ensure that the areas facilitate the best possible test of social impact. Subject to that consideration, I also asked the panel to include areas in need of regeneration that would benefit in employment terms from a new casino and to ensure that those areas selected are willing to license a new casino. The panel has been operating entirely independently of the Government, and I should like to place on record my appreciation for the rigour and professionalism that Professor Crow and his colleagues have brought to the process."This has been an open and transparent process throughout, and the views of local people have been taken into account at every stage. The panel asked local authorities to include evidence of local consultation. Local people were invited to participate in the examinations in public that were held in the seven short-listed areas. A number of areas, including Brent, Canterbury, Dartford, Thurrock and Woking, withdrew their applications to the panel in response to local opinion. A number of local authorities, such as Hackney,St Albans and Slough, have also taken advantage of new powers in the Gambling Act to resolve not to license any casinos in their area."After 16 months' consultation, and having considered all the evidence available, the panel has today recommended that the following authorities should be entitled to issue a small casino premises licence: Bath and North East Somerset, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lindsey, Luton, Scarborough, Swansea, Torbay, and Wolverhampton."The following local authorities should be entitled to issue a large casino premises licence: Great Yarmouth, Kingston-upon-Hull, Leeds, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, Newham, Solihull and Southampton. And that Manchester should be entitled to issue the one regional casino premises licence permitted by the Act."I congratulate Manchester and the other recommended towns and cities on their success and I acknowledge the disappointment of those towns and cities that have not been recommended. "I received a copy of the panel's report just this morning. Because I am also conscious of the need to maintain the integrity of the independent process that we have established, it is only fair to all the applicants that I should take the time to consider its contents carefully. I am also required by the Gambling Act to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers."I am therefore announcing today that, following this consultation with the devolved administrations, I am minded to return to this House at the earliest opportunity with an order which will enable Parliament to consider the panel's recommendations and vote on the order. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the debate will be held on the Floor of the House. This means that Parliament will rightly determine the outcome of this process. "Gambling will always be a sensitive issue, and I understand the reservations that some Members and others have about casinos. However, I have always sought to ensure that the Government proceed cautiously, with the strongest possible safeguards and on the basis of the best evidence of public protection in the face of rising public demand. That is what we have done."Once again, I thank Professor Crow and his panel for the thoroughness of their work and I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Clement-Jones: And in Manchester, my Lords, as my noble friends point out.
	No doubt the report will repay further reading in the run-up to that debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about the timing of the debate, so that we will really have the opportunity to examine the grounds on which the decision was made, which has obviously been such a disappointment to many in those two areas.
	This House, like the other place, will be surprised by the Secretary of State's statement:
	"We thought it was right to be cautious".
	Just before the general election, it was the opposition parties who were urging caution on the Government about the spread of casinos, especially the regional casino concept, not the Government. The Government were very gung-ho for the concept of eight super-casinos.
	I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said today about not expanding the number of casinos beyond 17 until their ability to aid regeneration while not increasing problem gambling has been thoroughly tested. I hope that the Minister can confirm that we will be able to debate the methodology to be suggested by the University of Lancaster: how it is judged whether regeneration can take place without increasing problem gambling.
	Today's announcement of 17 new casinos has hit the headlines, but the Minister may cast his mind back to a programme just this weekend that revealed that 68 new licences have been approved by the Gambling Commission in the past two years. Although some have had premises licences refused, that could lead to another 40 or 50 casinos on top of today's 17. There are even more applications in the offing. How does that square with the statement by the Secretary of State that the Government willnot even consider allowing any further casinosuntil proper evaluation has been made of the17 announced today?
	Why did Mr Richard Caborn say two years ago that,
	"we can say with certainty that there will be no more than150 casinos. There could be fewer"?—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 11/1/05; col. 718.]
	Was that not a complete misstatement? Doesn't it look as though there will be more than that? What will be the final total of new casinos? I also wonder whether the Secretary of State regrets saying about three years ago:
	"If this legislation"—
	the Gambling Bill—
	"gave rise to an increase in problem gambling then it would have failed and it would be bad legislation".
	She said in a recent "Any Questions" broadcast that,
	"every single bit of change in legislation, if it proves to give a rise to harm, will be rescinded".
	Can the Minister confirm that that is indeed government policy?
	Then we have the issue of expenditure on problem gambling. Given that we spend £270 million on treating alcohol addiction, should not the gambling industry be paying much more than the current £2.5 million to the main body that helps deal with gambling addiction? Will the Government ensure that the new casinos make a proper contribution to help fund solutions to gambling addiction?
	At least in the Statement, the Minister committed to no further growth in gambling opportunities until we test out what we already have and are likely to have following today's announcement. I very much hope that he will confirm that that is rock-solid government policy. We look forward to the debate on the affirmative resolution.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate, although he re-introduces the issue of the Dome, on which I was slightly dismissive in my response to the noble Lord, LordSt John of Fawsley, for which I apologise. The right reverend Prelate will take some joy from the fact that one of the features of the Greenwich application, on which the panel commented, is that there is a great deal of redevelopment in the Greenwich area at the moment, to the great benefit of the locality. The panel sees that position being enhanced. The casino would not have added sufficient value to that development. As he will know, there are several proposals for the development of the Dome within that framework, many of which have exciting aspects. A great many of London's facilities will be enhanced in preparation for the Olympic Games in 2012, and we anticipate that the Dome will be utilised then.
	The right reverend Prelate says that he feels slightly sorry for the city of Manchester, which will be subject to the pilot study. That is not the view of Manchester or its people, who are delighted with the outcome of today's deliberations.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, there will clearly be some enthusiasm for this announcement, no doubt not least from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—quite apart from Manchester andthe other local authorities, as we have heard from the Minister. No doubt they will have negotiated other benefits for their area in addition to extra jobs. However, as noble Lords have already heard, there is considerable concern among Members on these Benches and people throughout the country. In a YouGov poll, 56 per cent of citizens were worried that this would lead to more addiction and more social problems. Of course we are glad to hear that the Government are committed to monitoring seriously the likely effect of these casinos. With that in mind, however, can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government made, before embarking on this rash of casinos, of the cost of supporting—and, one hopes, reforming—each additional addict and their family, including the vulnerable children who will be affected, and the local community, which, as we have heard, is likely to be subjected to extra crime? Will the Minister also assure this House that at least this cost will be the first charge on the profits of every casino company involved?

Baroness Golding: My Lords, it is very nice to hear people congratulating Professor Crow and his committee. However, I do not congratulate him on the regional casino: it should not be in Manchester. I spent a very long time on the pre-legislative Select Committee looking at different areas and all the things that I assumed Professor Crow was looking at. Blackpool would be a resort casino; the Dome would be a destination casino; and Manchester would be a city casino. The Select Committee said that the casino should not be in a city. I went to Australia and saw the damage caused by having a casino in a city.
	The Minister mentioned regeneration aroundthe Dome. What regeneration has there been in Blackpool? The answer is none. What has there been in Manchester? There has been a lot. Blackpool needed this: it was waiting for it and will need it still. Why do we hand over to an academic committee something that should be decided by this House and the elected Members in another place? Can the Minister answer that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I have indicated, the final decision will rest with the other place and this House. When the order is considered, I have no doubt that very similar speeches to that which my noble friend has hinted at today will be madehere and in the other place. Indeed, she may be a participant in that debate. Therefore, all these issues will be aired. The House will have the opportunity to look carefully at Professor Crow's report. I can merely report that the judgment that my noble friend reached is different from that reached by the professor and his panel.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I assure the Minister that I have never been prouder that I took the title Lord McNally of Blackpool, especially with the town's dignified and resilient response to today's news. The Minister mentioned Professor Crow's report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, has just indicated, the report dismisses with almost cavalier economic illiteracy the Blackpool economic case. I sometimes think that if Blackpool was a steel, coal or cotton town, the impact of declining tourism would be greater appreciated.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, also pointed out, the Minister gives a smooth government decision-making process. I wonder what the royal commission set up to look into this matter thinks about this or what the Joint Committee thinks. The wheel has turned many times and it is unfortunate that this one has turned against Blackpool when the strongest arguments were in Blackpool's favour.
	Two points really worry me. We have suddenly found that this inner city casino has the merit of being able to test social gambling—quite so. Every study at home and abroad has warned against "door-step gambling"—gambling on the door step. Professor Crow says that,
	"most of the social effects",
	as would affect Blackpool,
	"would be exported".
	He means that people would go to places like Blackpool for two weeks for holiday enjoyment of gambling. At a door-step casino like Manchester, they will stay with the problem and will create the problem. In many ways, it is the most perverse decision that could be made and is against all the warnings of research.
	There is another extraordinary thing in the report. It states that,
	"Manchester ... is one of England's eight 'Core Cities'",
	which drives,
	"national and regional economic growth".
	When and where from did the committee get this information and why were the other applicants not told that this special privilege would be given to core cities as against places like Blackpool?
	I should like to make one further comment to opponents of casinos. We have all watched James Bond and George Raft films and the problem with casinos is that they are a nice, emotive issue. In fact, while opponents are obsessing about casinos, the real problem gambling will go on tonight on ITV when people can spend 75p a minute on television quizzes from their beds or make bets from their telephones. The most regulated and most easily controlled problem gambling is at a destination casino. The worst kind of casino is in an inner city where problems are waiting for it and where those problems will fester.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who deserves a response to his powerful contribution. He has been unwavering in his advocacy of Blackpool as the location and will get the opportunity for further debate on whether this recommendation should come into effect across the country. He will have the chance to make that advocacy. The noble Lord has presented the great strengths of the Blackpool case. There were great strengths among all bidders in the final group which were considered for the super-casino. Earlier, I reflected in the briefest way possible with regard to the report some factors which were considered by the casino panel.
	Of course, there will be disagreement with its conclusions. By definition, there would always be more disappointed towns and bidders than successful ones, which is in the nature of this kind of exercise. However, in one respect, the panel was absolutely clear: a crucial aspect of the Manchester bid was that it gave the best possible circumstances for considering problem gambling and the pilot location. That is the basis of its recommendation. We will in the future have the chance to deliberate on those points.

Lord Steinberg: My Lords, I declare an interest. When the Gambling Bill last came before the House, I was the non-executive chairman of Stanley Leisure. Since then, it has been sold as the result of a takeover and I am now life president. Stanley Leisure had 45 casinos, including three in Manchester, so I, living in Manchester, welcome the casino being situated there.
	The decision was difficult and, as a result, I hope that there will not be a series of judicial reviews which will halt the process even further. Some of the more hysterical newspaper reports say that the whole thing is a disaster. I put it to the Minister that Great Britain has the lowest rate of problem gambling in the world. I am proud to be a founder member of Gamcare,an organisation that helps to look after problem gamblers. To my knowledge, casinos here keep a tighter control on problem gambling than those in other countries. I commend that and long may it continue. I hope that the comments about crime, prostitution and money laundering are all basically figments of journalistic licence. We have never had a case of problem gambling. We have never had a case involving crime or prostitution. I hope that the Minister will continue that record.
	However, I have a few questions—

Lord Steinberg: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I have the following questions for the Minister. Will he give an undertaking that the current opening hours for casinos will remain the same? Will he give an undertaking that advertising will not be broadcast on television or radio before9 pm? Will the Minister also try to deal with online gambling, which is becoming an extremely difficult problem? I hope, with my years of experience, that I have been of some help to the Minister.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 41 while still feeling somewhat shell shocked by the events of the past two minutes. I thought that my noble friend Lady Miller would move this amendment, but its substance is quite clear:
	"The consultation set out in subsection (3) shall not take place before 2011".
	It is very much on a par with the arguments I madeon a previous amendment. The thrust of many ofour amendments has been to seek to delay the implementation of certain clauses of the Bill. That is the purpose of this amendment and no doubt my noble friend Lady Miller will put the case more articulately than me. I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Clause 37 , page 21, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) section (The territorial committees)(3A)(c) (functions which Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee is authorised to exercise);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 41 [Interpretation of Part 2]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 46:
	Clause 41 , page 23, line 41, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41 , page 23, line 43, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 1, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 4, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 8, at end insert—
	
		
			 "A person holding a licence under section 7(2) of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) (transportation licences). A person (other than a gas licensee) who is a consumer in relation to services provided by a gas transporter (within the meaning of Part 1 of that Act). The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority"

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. The provision in the Bill for redress schemes for gas and electricity extends to consumers in their relationship with suppliers of gas and electricity. We wish to extend that provision to cover instances where the consumer needs to have a direct relationship with a gas transporter or an electricity distribution company, the network companies responsible for the system of pipes or cables that deliver the energy supplies to the end user.
	For most purposes, the relationship is between the consumer and the supplier. That is intentional in order to avoid complexity. There are instances, however, where the consumer needs to have direct dealings with the distributor. In many instances, this will be when a new mains gas or electricity connection is requested. A new connection may prove to be expensive in some cases and there is provision in existing legislation for quotations to be referred to the regulator, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, for determination of the amount to be paid by the consumer.
	The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority has indicated, however, that there are instances where its powers of determination may not prove to be adequate to deal with consumer complaints against distributors. At the same time, the authority considers that there will in future be potentially greater scope for consumers to need to have direct contact with distributors, particularly on issues concerning distributed generation. For these reasons we seek to extend the scope of the redress schemes to cover that potential need for redress for consumers.
	Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 53 extend the scope of the requirement to belong to redress schemesto transporters and distributors, and Amendments Nos. 82 and 84 extend the classes of membership of redress schemes that are required to be approved by the regulator. These amendments would mean that the new classes of regulated providers will also be subject to the regulator's power to lay down standards for handling complaints by relevant consumers in Clause 42, the provision for the council to publish information about complaint-handling standards in Clause 44 and to give information to relevant consumers in Clause 45 as well as making the new regulated providers subject to the power to require membership of a redress scheme in Clause 46. The amendments also have the effect of ensuring that potentially a distribution company or a transporter in its capacity as a customer of a supply company should be within the scope of those able to use the redress scheme as would any other customer.
	I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a very worthwhile addition to the Bill's consumer protection and redress provisions. I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 53:
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 13, at end insert—
	
		
			 "A person holding a licence under section 6(1)(c) of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29) (distribution licences). A person (other than an electricity licensee) who is a consumer in relation to services provided by an electricity distributor (within the meaning of Part 1 of that Act). The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority" 
		
	
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 26, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 27, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 30, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 31, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) In this section—
	"electricity licensee" means—
	(a) an electricity supplier (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)); (b) an electricity distributor (within the meaning of that Part); (c) the holder of a licence under section 6(1)(a), (b) or (e) of that Act (generation licences, transmission licences and interconnector licences), except where the holder is acting otherwise than for purposes connected with the carrying on of activities authorised by the licence;
	"gas licensee" means—
	(a) a gas supplier (within the meaning of Part 1 of theGas Act 1986 (c. 44)); (b) a gas transporter (within the meaning of that Part); (c) a gas shipper (within the meaning of that Part); (d) the holder of a licence under section 7ZA of that Act (licences for operation of gas interconnectors), except where the holder is acting otherwise than for purposes connected with the carrying on of activities authorised by the licence."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Standards for handling complaints]:

Lord Newton of Braintree: moved AmendmentNo. 64A:
	Clause 46 , leave out Clause 46

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, although the amendment seeks to leave out Clause 46, I should say straightaway that—as I am sure the Minister's officials will have spotted—it is designed not to wreck the entire Bill but to enable me to raise again a point that I raised in Committee. For those who wish to be keen students of my earlier speech, it was reported in Hansard on 9 January at cols. 73 to 75. My point received some support on that occasion from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, both of whom I am pleased to see in their places. My aim in moving the amendment is also to give the Minister a greater opportunity to make a fuller response to my points than he was able to give on that occasion, when I bowled him what could be seen as a bit of a bouncer.
	I again declare what I called in Committee a "potential prospective interest" in that I am chairman of the Council on Tribunals which, under a Bill that the House will be considering on Report tomorrow, will become the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and acquire a much greater interest than it has even at present in the world of ombudsmen, which is widely seen as part of the system of administrative justice.
	The point in question is that Clause 46, and indeed the estate agents provisions later in the Bill, clearly envisages what I regard as a curious provision for multiple competing ombudsmen in the same sector. It would be wrong for me to rehearse everything that I said in Committee and I shall not do so. I shall simply reiterate the main points.
	My first point concerns the irony, if you like, that while the first part of the Bill is designed to create greater coherence and reduce confusion for consumers by setting up a more wide-ranging single National Consumer Council, there is at the same time a possibility of creating greater complexity in the world of ombudsmen. If I brought forward proposals for rival parliamentary, health service or local government ombudsmen, it would be widely regarded as ridiculous. There is no proposal for rival legal services ombudsmen. And I make no apology for repeating almost word for word one point that I made in Committee: the Government have gone to great trouble in the financial services field to get rid of about six different ombudsmen and to create a single financial services ombudsman which has worked out very well.
	As I do not intend to take up the House's time at length, I will simply observe that, so far as I can see, it is no more sensible to have competing ombudsmen than it would be to have competing courts or tribunals. It is even more curious—I might even say bizarre—that the choice is not for the customers complaining, but for the supplier against whom complaints are made—carrying, as again I said in Committee, the obvious risk that the choice of ombudsman will be influenced by the interests of the firm rather than the customer.
	I am aware, as the Minister reminded me in Committee, that there is a competing situation in telecoms. That, however, is another arrangementin which the DTI had a major hand, and it has produced a situation which is—again I use understated language—not universally regarded as a model.
	From conversations I had at the time of Committee, it was clear that there was a fairly widely held hope that the industry would achieve common sense by agreeing on a single scheme. I suspect, however, that the amendments we have just passed, widening the definition from providers to suppliers, may carry a risk of reducing that likelihood.
	There is another irony. In his speech in response to my amendments in Committee, the Minister referred to the fact that,
	"In approving the redress schemes, the relevant regulator will be required to have regard to established good practice"—
	now "best practice", I think—
	"such as, for example, the guidance published by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association".—[Official Report, 9/1/07;col. GC 78.]
	As I said in Committee, if we are going to quote the British and Irish Ombudsman Association, as I myself did in Committee, its view of best practice is that it is right to have only one ombudsman in any given sector.
	I hope the Minister will reflect again on what I have said. We have here an approach that does not appear to be adopted by any other government department, with the possible exception of the DCMS, does not correspond with the advice of BIOA, and, in my view, does not correspond with the interests either of the consumer or of common sense. I hope we might hear a clear explanation from the Minister of just what is the department's reasoning in coming up with this proposal, which could lead to competing ombudsmen in this field. I beg to move.

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, the Minister has probably spotted by now that I am not a natural born troublemaker, so I do not intend to seek the opinion of the House on this matter. I draw some encouragement from what he said. I cannot say that I found it wholly persuasive, when certain arguments that could have been adduced in other fields have certainly not been in the way that I touched on in my earlier remarks.
	I take some comfort from the Minister's remarks. In planning what I might say in gracefully withdrawing, more or less regardless of whatever he said, I intended to say that I took some comfort from the fact that the Bill did not make a multiple-ombudsman situation compulsory. I harbour a good deal of hope that common sense will prevail with the suppliers, the regulator or both. Indeed, I have been encouraged by the Minister's speech to think that what I regard as common sense has spread to some degree to the Department of Trade and Industry, if it is the department's declared policy preference that there should be only one ombudsman. I hope thatthe department may use whatever influence it has on the outcome to achieve a situation in which, whatever the legal provision, the consumer ends up with a single high-quality scheme.
	I thank the Minister for that small bit of encouragement and for the trouble he has taken over his reply. I gracefully beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 69 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 92. The amendments relate to Clause 48 under the Consumer Voice provisions and Schedule 6 concerning the redress provisions for estate agents. The amendments outline the matters that a regulator must take into account prior to approving a redress scheme for operation and the key features of any qualifying redress scheme.
	As currently drafted, the clauses place a requirement on regulators to have regard to generally accepted principles of good practice. In Committee, Members asked that the word "good" be replaced with "best" in this instance. I was grateful for the opportunity to have a full and frank debate onthe issue. I said then that we were in agreement on the fundamental issue, which is to ensure that any approved redress scheme conforms to generally accepted criteria, such as the guidelines provided by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association,which cover issues such as independence, fairness, effectiveness and public accountability.
	Our aim is to achieve the best redress provisions for consumers without placing too onerous a burdenon a regulator in determining best practice. After considering the issue carefully, we feel that simply substituting "best" for "good" would force a regulator to go through an onerous process to establish what exactly the best practice was, and possibly expose the regulator to challenge on this matter. Approval of redress schemes falls to a regulator in this instance, and the determination of what constitutes generally accepted best practice is a vital part of that process. Having considered the matter further, we have tabled these amendments, which will require regulators to have regard to such principles as, in their opinion, constitute generally accepted best practice when approving a redress scheme. It will be the responsibility of each regulator to reach that opinion reasonably to avoid legal challenge.
	The amendment to Schedule 6 also requires the OFT to have regard to,
	"such principles as it is reasonable to regard as applicable to the scheme".
	That will ensure that, in considering best practice, the OFT will consider what is best for the estate agent market, as opposed to other markets where redress schemes operate. It brings the wording of the estate agents redress provisions into line with the Consumer Voice provisions. The amendments strike the right balance. I beg to move.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, the amendment goes to the heart of what this Bill seeks to achieve: a new culture where responsible business practice empowers the consumer and where services are delivered and maintained cost-effectively and efficiently. The amendment would limit what could be a great deal of damage caused by an oversight inthe Bill.
	I thank the Minister for bringing forward government Amendment No. 69, which now includes the phrase "best practice", to a limited capacity, within the requirements for a redress scheme. This is a step inthe right direction, and I was pleased to see that the Minister had taken on board my amendment from Committee. His amendment takes the redress scheme in the right direction, but I am concerned that the wording could be circumnavigated by some redress scheme proposers to allow them to avoid making complaints-handling procedures a compulsory component of any scheme, thus creating inconsistency across the industry.
	Amendment No. 74 would ensure that no redress scheme would be approved unless it required all members to have in place and operate effective internal complaint- handling procedures. The initial function of the amendment is clear. Under Clause 46, the Secretary of State has the power to order all regulated suppliers to be members of a redress scheme; therefore, the inclusion of AmendmentNo. 74 would compel regulated suppliers to put effective complaints handling in place.
	It seems strange that the requirements for complaints handling are so flimsy in a Bill which postures to be the key to streamlining business and consumer relations. It is all very well offering redress to customers, but it is vital to remember that the redress scheme is the last stop in what we could describe as a journey of complaints made by the consumer. It is the last resort. If one is drawing up a Bill that is intended to align the provision of services with consumer satisfaction, a redress scheme that is designed to catch the worst failures in dealing with complaints should of necessity be designed proactively to prevent that failure in the first place.
	In 2007-08, Energywatch will receive, it tells us, 600,000 contacts from customers. Approximately 200,000 will require active intervention with the company. New arrangements will mean that, in that same year, the full burden of complaint resolution falls on those companies. This will require a major systems and process overhaul within each supplier if these complaints are to be dealt with effectively and constructively.
	Energy companies in particular do not have a good record of dealing with complaints, which are by definition technically challenging and complex. I am extremely anxious that, while the merger of Energywatch and Postwatch into the National Consumer Council could provide the perfect opportunity to relate one consumer matter with another, not only the most valuable evidence of complaints but also the effective delivery of service to the consumer, will be compromised. If complaintsare not easily accessible to Consumer Voice, which will be, after all, a sign-posting organisation, the operations of trading standards bodies, the citizens' advice bureaux and regulators could be compromised by a lack of necessary information.
	The amendment does not re-invent the wheel. Indeed, a model of the system that it proposes is already successfully working in the financial services market. The Financial Services Authority already requires that membership of the Financial Ombudsman Service is dependent on an organisation having an appropriate and effective internal complaint-handling function. The Financial Services Authority goes one step further by prescribing the procedures that an organisation must follow when handling complaints, from ensuring that the complaint handler has sufficient authority to settle the complaint to offering redress.
	The energy industry is run on an entirely permissive model. Perhaps I may list some characteristic traits of our energy industry's attitude towards consumers. Not one supplier currently records all direct complaints in a manner which would meet criteria set out by the International Organization for Standardization. Not one supplier records a consumer's complaint if it has been resolved at the first attempt. Most suppliers are unable to conduct root-cause analysis of consumer complaints, so the same mistakes keep happening. No suppliers publish data on the quality of their complaints-handling services.
	I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, in Committee, where he suggested that the Bill should take heed of the financial services industry in streamlining complaints through one ombudsman. I hope that he will support the amendment—if he is in the House—which would ensure that, while there may not be one redress scheme, there would be a guaranteed strong standard of complaints handling and, most importantly, consistency across the industry.
	I hope especially that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose eloquent contribution in Committee I read again with great interest, will be able to support the amendment. I remember particularly his saying:
	"It is ... important, that regulators do not have an option to specify higher standards of customer service, which they will regulate and for which there will be sanctions for failure, but have an obligation to do so".—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. GC76.]
	I was pleased to see that he recognised the difficulties that the National Consumer Council faces. The simple truth is that complaints are set to increase as the population of this country increases and as more people use services. The new NCC, in its capacity as complaints handler, and the companies themselves are not, and will not be, equipped to process them.
	Her Majesty's Government have claimed that this Bill signals the improvement of consumer services and a future of streamlined research and response to the consumer from industry, yet the merging of bodies such as Energywatch and Postwatch, without ensuring that companies will now take on the burden of complaints, will amount to little more than wallpapering over the cracks.
	I know that the establishment of effective complaints-handling procedures will have a hugely positive impact on the combined forces of the new National Consumer Council, Consumer Voice and Consumer Direct. If consumers can expect to have problems handled efficiently and solved within a reasonable time frame, set out in advance by the company, that will reduce the impact on Consumer Direct of handling thousands of additional complaints and enquiries.
	Energywatch has emphasised that making complaints-handling procedures compulsory is the only way to achieve the dual objective of improving complaints handling and saving resources. It will allow the NCC to focus on delivering excellent research and policy work, and most importantly it will ensure that vulnerable consumers, especially those in need of additional advocacy and support, are not left behind by a so-called streamlining operation that does no more than provide a signpost that points away from the real problems that people face.
	This amendment is vital to the success of Consumer Voice as a champion for consumers. The Minister's response at Committee was somewhat limited by the large group of amendments and was therefore somewhat disappointing. I hope that he will be able to accept this amendment or, at the very least, agree to look at it and for us to come back to it at Third Reading. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I support the general approach. It is very important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, that the total strategy is taken into account. This Bill will not work unless effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that the companies meet the requirement to handle complaints far more effectively than, frankly, either the post or energy sector does at present.
	My only query about the amendment is whether it is in the right place; it might be made to Clause 46, which sets out the requirements on the redress scheme and the regulator. I was also slightly surprised thatthe leverage in Clause 42 had not attracted any amendments from the Government or anyone else in which a requirement on the regulator to ensure better complaints handling would be necessary to ensure that the companies can absorb the kind of complaints which, at the moment, are dealt with only by Energywatch and, to some extent, Postwatch. If the Government suggested that the amendment should be to another part of the Bill, I would not object, but it seems a crucial part of the approach of the Bill that we have something like this amendment in the final version and that the Government recognise that they should use all leverage on the regulator, via the redress scheme, to ensure that companies comply with a high standard of complaints handling; otherwise, the whole strategy falls. I hope that the Government, if they cannot accept the amendment, come forward with one that achieves the equivalent objective.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the amendment requires that the existence of a functioning and effective internal complaints-handing procedure in the case of each supplier and prospective member be made a prerequisite of the approval of these schemes. The current provisions take fully into account the importance of service providers establishing effective internal procedures for handling consumer complaints. The redress provisions are based on the premise that, except in exceptional circumstances in which immediate intervention is warranted, service providers will have the opportunity to resolve disputes first hand.
	Although we understand the motivation behind the amendment, we feel that the approach we have chosen is in line with better regulation principles, a point to which I shall return. We are giving regulators the power to make regulations to prescribe complaint-handling standards that would be binding on suppliers. Information about suppliers' levels of compliance with any prescribed standards would be placed in the public domain. This is a fundamental aspect of the new model for consumer redress being introduced by these measures. We consider that, between this requirement and the requirement to belong to a redress scheme which industry must fund, suppliers will face strong incentives to introduce effective internal procedures for handling complaints.
	This amendment would place an additionalburden on regulators and scheme administrators in determining whether suppliers operated appropriate and effective schemes, although I take on board the points made by noble Lords. These provisions will need to adaptable and applied on a sector-by-sector basis, with each regulator being able to take a different approach to suit the sector's own particular requirements. In some instances, these provisions will need to work alongside existing legislation, and this will be different for each sector.
	I shall look at this issue again, but we believe that it is possible to achieve the desired outcomes mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, through the monitoring of performance, especially in the sphere of complaint-handling standards.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 87:
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 8, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 9, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 10, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 11, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 13, leave out "suppliers were to the regulated gas suppliers" and insert "providers were to the regulated gas providers"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 14, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 16, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 17, leave out "6(1)(d)" and insert "6(1)(c) or (d)"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 18, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 18, at end insert "7(2) or"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 32, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 45, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 47, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 88:
	Before Clause 52 , insert the following new Clause—
	"Standards of competence
	(1) Section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38) (standards of competence) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
	(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations made by statutory instrument designate any body of persons as an approved body which people engaged in estate agency work, including both the sale and lettings of residential property, must belong to.
	(2) The approved bodies must make membership conditional on signing up to rules and codes of conduct, which will include—
	(a) prescribe minimum competency standards; (b) ensure that firms have adequate professional indemnity insurance and, as appropriate, clients money protection insurance; (c) require a minimum level of professional development per year; and (d) require membership of a redress scheme."

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this has been a very frustrating Bill to take part in. In Committeewe were hopelessly confused by the groupings of amendments. I commend the Minister for what he has done to make the groupings much better on Report. Now that we are on Report, we have had our concentration broken by what I would consider an unnecessary intervention of a Statement when we were well over two-thirds of the way through the debate.
	As usual, I must declare my interest as a consultant to an estate agency in London. I thank the Minister very much for the letters that he has written to me and for our meeting. I am extremely grateful to him; he could not have done more to at least listen to what I had to say, although whether it moved him at all is doubtful.
	Amendment No. 88 is a revised version of the one that I tabled in Committee. In Committee a number of arguments were made against my proposals, and I should like to put the counterarguments on the record. The first was that the standards and qualifications that I wanted would inhibit competition in the industry. I believe that the reverse is true; most honest agents want some form of qualifications and are happy to obtain them. Only very recently a record number of 1,200 people sat the various examinations that the National Association of Estate Agents sets. It is interesting to know that the average age of the members of that association has fallen to only 35. I believe that the minimum competency standards should be a basic knowledge of the law, building constructions techniques and valuation techniques. The minimum competency standards set by the NAEA, which are the same as the three points that I have just mentioned, equate to an NVQ level 3.
	Another argument raised against the measure was that the problem is not incompetence but one of malpractice and lack of integrity. We all support the idea of a redress scheme but it is equally important that provisions are made for structures to be placed up front. While malpractice and lack of integrity are a problem, they are often encouraged by a combination of not having to abide by rules and codes and from a lack of adequate understanding. Exactly the same arguments can be applied to all the other professions involved in the buying and selling procedure that have to have licensing and regulation; for example, conveyancers, solicitors, surveyors and financial advisers. The Government's position that you can regulate most of the groups dealing with buying and selling but shy off when it comes to estate agents is totally illogical.
	It was argued that my concerns would be dealt with by the negative licensing powers of the Office of Fair Trading. Again this comes back to the issue that a redress scheme will punish only those who have committed a crime; it will not prevent the crime. I welcome the Government's actions on implementing a redress scheme but I believe that it should be up front and that positive licensing is the easiest and most effective method to check malpractice within the estate agency profession.
	The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that, as usual, all I really wanted was an expensive closed shop. I counter that by repeating the point that all the other professional bodies involved in buying and selling are effectively closed shops as a result of government action. Thousands of consumers are being ripped off every year because a small number of estate agents are not qualified and are acting as cowboys in what should be a sensible profession.
	It is not the case that industry bodies are keen to control the industry themselves. Under my proposals the Secretary of State would agree what the approved body would do or require. I should like to see an approved body that would ensure minimum competency standards and indemnity insurance and client protection insurance as required. I related to the Minister the insurance that I have to carry in order to retain my membership of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
	Membership of a redress scheme is covered by the Bill. There should be a commitment to a minimum number of hours of continued professional development. That happens in most industries and it is only logical that it should be extended to estate agents.
	Consumers will be confused as in due course some estate agents will be regulated and licensed under the alternative business structures in the Legal Services Bill. A large number of the bigger estate agents want to go into partnership with lawyers and produce a one-stop shop, and they will be regulated when they do so. So we will have a dual market—some will be regulated but others will not.
	I think that the real reason the Government are refusing to act is what is happening in Europe. As most of your Lordships will know, the EU is looking at the whole question of standards in estate agency. Could the Minister confirm that the final draft of the proposed standards which is being drawn up is likely to be agreed in Rome in March, that there will then be a further 12 months for discussion and that the final standards will be published in March next year?
	Could the Minister also confirm that Brussels recently informed the Confédération Européenne de l'Immobilier that if countries do not take up the standards voluntarily, it will look to bring them in by directive in 2011-12? As those standards are very similar to those of the National Association of Estate Agents, I take the rather cynical view that the Government are saying, "No, we are not going to do it now because we can blame it all on Brussels in four years' time when it will be imposed on us". That is not a sensible way in which to legislate. There has been British representation in all this through the British Standards Institute. The measure has been supported by the Government, and now the Government fail to take the initiative. That is a very good reason for moving this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I repeat the declarations of interest that I made in Committee. I am a director of a large private property investment and development group, Emerson Development Holdings, which builds about 450 homes a year and operates its own customer charter. I have a declarable shareholding in Pochin's plc., a quoted public company in property development and building services, which has a small house-building division.
	These Benches offer broad support to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his Amendment No. 88. I pay tribute to what he has tried to achieve in protecting the public both in this Bill and previously. He brings his years of professional experience to this subject.
	I do not wish to repeat the arguments that we made in Committee; essentially, we seek to expand the scope of the Bill to include both property lettings and direct sales from builders/developers to the public.On lettings, many tenants, particularly of cheaper properties, are by definition far less likely to be ableto afford to employ qualified advisers when contemplating a tenancy. Our contention is that they need protecting from unscrupulous agents. In addition, in recent years there have been a substantial number of purpose-built flat developments for letting, particularly in our major cities. Buy-to-let investors, often with limited property experience, have bought blocks of individual flats hoping to benefit from their capital appreciation rather than developing a genuine, long-term landlord/tenant relationship. Should the property market turn down and/or interest rates rise, as they have done recently, those investors may well have to dump the properties on the market, cutting their losses and perhaps allowing an unscrupulous landlord/investor to come in. As agents of mixed qualifications and integrity are likely to be involved at a number of stages, we believe that tenants should have a right of redress. I am particularly pleased that the National Association of Estate Agents supports bringing residential lettings into this legislation.
	On sales, the approach by the noble Earl effectively enables the activities of builders/developers selling directly to the public to be classified as estate agency work and therefore subject to the redress scheme. Although the majority of such developers are usually covered by HBF or NHBC charter, we still feel that a redress scheme would provide additional protection for the public.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I support the amendment although I shall reserve my comments about lettings until we reach the next amendment. I declare an interest in that I am in the process of trying to sell a property and buy one, so I have direct experience of a number of estate agents. But perhaps those anecdotes should be recounted in the bar rather than in the House.
	My noble friend the Minister is very lucky that the NAEA seeks to raise standards through qualifications not in order to impose a closed shop but simply to improve the reputation and standing of the industry so that people like me can be provided with a better service when buying or selling a property. I should say that I am getting a good service; I do not want to cause myself more difficulties. It seems to me that the NAEA has made a sensible suggestion. I understand that since the launch of the scheme some 2,500 people have passed the NAEA's technical qualification. That has opened up access to the industry, has encouraged younger people to come in and is a way of raising standards. This measure seems to me a good ideaand I hope that my noble friend will consider it sympathetically.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Amendment No. 88, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduces minimum standards of competence for estate agents. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation of his intent behind the amendment. As he mentioned, we discussed this before. The amended Section 22 would require the Secretary of State to designate certain approved bodies that estate agents must belong to. Membership of those bodies would be conditional on agents signing up to the rules andcode of conduct of the body concerned, whichmust include certain competency standards and requirements.
	I appreciate the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord Dubs, but as I have explained before, positive licensing was looked at in detail by the OFT, which concluded that its benefits are not justified by its costs. The Government share this view. Giving trading and professional bodies control of access to the market could reduce competition and result in rising prices, to the detriment of consumers. There is little evidence that such controls would prevent rogue agents entering the market or remove those agents whose misconduct is predominantly the result of a lack of integrity, rather than a lack of qualifications.
	However, the Government support moves to develop national quality standards for residential estate agents in the UK. We see merit in that as, properly done, it can provide an incentive to raise standards. But this is a matter primarily for the industry. We do not support the imposition of compulsory qualifications and standards, which would amount to positive licensing. I recognise that the noble Earl feels passionately about this issue, which he has raised on a number of occasions over many years. I reassert the Government's intention, which is to improve the current negative licensing regime. The fact that we are setting up redress schemes has been widely welcomed. Requiring agents to join approved redress schemes and making it easier for enforcers to prove misconduct and take enforcement action is the most effective way of tackling problems in the industry without driving up costs for consumers.
	The noble Earl mentioned the European issue. At the moment, no decision has yet been taken on whether an EU directive is needed in this area.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord Dubs. There are many on the government Benches who dislike the view that the Minister is taking. He has to take his brief, and that is right; but the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has put his name to a number of Bills wanting to control estate agents. The noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Davies of Oldham, have both put their names to Bills trying to deal with estate agents. Everyone knows that there is a problem, and the Government are too pathetic and weak even to try to tackle the problem. They are very happy to try little redress schemes; but that is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need to grasp this nettle, and this is the ideal Bill in which to do it.
	The Minister said that it is not justified by the cost. I take issue with him on that. Is he prepared to let thousands of consumers be ripped off for a licensing scheme that will not cost the consumer any money at all? There are lots of estate agents out there and there is a big market working. All we are saying is that there should be some form of licensing to raise standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said.
	I was very disappointed not to receive any support from my Front Bench. That is in marked contrast to what happened in the previous Parliament, when I received very enthusiastic support from my Front Bench. Quite rightly, I have not asked my noble friend Lady Wilcox what she thinks about it; she has a job to do. But since she has been such a doughty supporter of the consumer in the past, it must gall her that the consumer is not about to be given the protection that he, and she, so badly want.
	On the European issue, I know that no decision has been taken on a directive; that was not the question I asked. I asked the Minister two other questions, which he has not been able to answer. I did not give him notice of what I was going to ask him, but it is right that he ought to be able to reply and give me a chance to consider his thoughts. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is my understanding that there are far more queries and complaints about lettings through estate agents than there are about sales. One has only to talk to people or to read the newspapers to realise that people are greatly concerned that they have been dealt with badly when they have let properties and they are unhappy about that.
	We all congratulated the Government on the Bill, despite our reservations about details—and I introduced a Private Member's Bill in the previous Session. That also did not concern lettings, but that was an oversight on my part and there were some drafting difficulties. I understand from my noble friend the Minister that there are some technical difficulties with including lettings in this Bill. On the other hand, we have come such a long way in improving the situation with regard to estate agents that it would seem a pity not to deal with lettings as well. Even if there are difficulties, it is not beyond the powers of my noble friend and the parliamentary draftsman to sort this out.
	The amendment may be technically defective—I do not think that it is but that is the usual Front Bench comment when one moves an amendment—but surely we should not miss this opportunity. It will be a long time before we get one again and if the Government are intent on dealing with the problem, why do they not deal with its totality? This is a serious issue. I urge my noble friend to look at this matter, consider whether he can support the principle and, if necessary, deal with the details of an amendment at the next stage—although I hope that he can accept the amendment as it stands.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, perhaps I may surprise the noble Earl by supporting his amendment. It is close to the dinner hour, but I like to create a little surprise on occasion. I do so because in Grand Committee the Minister said that the OFT report of 2004 did not deal with this problem, only with its remit of estate agency as then defined in the Estate Agents Act, which did not include the growing field of lettings and property management. I support what the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Dubs, in saying that whatever technical difficulties there may be and despite the fact that the OFT did not consider this matter in 2004, a way should be found, either through this amendment or following the Government's consideration between now and Third Reading, so that this opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put it, is not missed. There is nothing terribly magical about redress schemes. The scheme that is being proposed in the Bill could easily be extended now, rather than in five, 10 or 20 years, to a related problem in the work of estate agents.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the amendment would extend the scope of the Estate Agents Act 1979 to include lettings and property management. As I mentioned in Grand Committee, the Estate Agents Act 1979 applies only to those engaged in estate agency work, and the OFT report on estate agents did not consider the case for extending it to cover lettings and property management. Consequently, we do not have the evidence base to extend the provisions of the 1979 Act in this way.
	As my noble friend Lord Dubs correctly acknowledged, amending the 1979 Act to cover lettings and property management would be difficult. Its scope is limited to issues specific to the buyingand selling of land. This is clear in fundamental definitions contained in the Act, for example, "interests in land", and from the duties owed by estate agents, such as information to be given to clients. Amending the Act to make it fit for the purpose intended by noble Lords would require a lot of detailed work.
	I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Borrie that the Government take the issue of lettings extremely seriously. Steps have already been taken to tackle problem areas such as tenants' deposits and houses in multiple occupation. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to monitor the lettings sector and take action where they find evidence of market failure. That applies also to the wider property sector as a whole.
	However, given the views expressed in your Lordships' House this evening, I undertake to consider this matter further.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am mindful of the time, so I shall speak quickly on the amendment, because I am sure that the Minister will give me this in two minutes.
	We have just heard the persuasive arguments of my noble friend Lord Caithness highlighting some serious concerns about the estate agency industry. Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 represent a possible option, which I hope my noble friend Lord Caithness will be able to support. The weight of his experience would be most welcome.
	Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 would establish a code of practice that would provide standards that all estate agents' redress schemes would have to apply. This is an important distinction: it would not introduce a code of practice for estate agents; rather it would ensure that all estate agents' redress schemes had to adhere to one set of standards.
	My central worry in this Bill is that it opens up avenues for all sorts of redress schemes but does not actively encourage consistency within different schemes. My noble friend Lord Caithness has spoken with great expertise on this matter. However, at this stage, the least that the Government could provide is an assurance that we will not be left with a scenario as a result of this Bill whereby there are many and varied redress schemes, with the best estate agents signing up to the best, most vigorous redress schemes, including penalties that act as deterrents for bad practice, and agents with very little regard to the fairness of their practice, or the welfare of their customers, signing up to schemes that pose no threat and provide no incentive to better practice.
	I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet the chief executive of the National Association of Estate Agents who was clear in saying that while his organisation would welcome licensing, consistency in some form or another was of the utmost importance in the industry today. He has written to me on Amendment No. 90. He stated:
	"If there is to be more than one estate agents' redress scheme, it is critical that they operate in the same way so that the consumers and the industry are not further confused, and so that all estate agents operate on a level playing field".
	The amendment is simple. It would require the DTI to draw up a simple code of practice to which all estate agents' redress schemes would adhere. It would achieve consistency in the industry and the confidence of the public.
	I look forward to the Minister's response and I hope that it will be positive. I beg to move.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, AmendmentNo. 93 seeks to raise the penalty from £500 to £3,000. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, sought to raise it to £1,000. We supported that, but wish to go further. We generally favour a light regulatory approach, due to the lack of a recognised standard within estate agency, and we feel that a redress scheme represents this light touch. Where necessary, sanctions and penalties should be tough enough to give teeth and credibility when dealing with the rogue element. Our recommendation of £3,000 is based on the fact that the average national estate agency commission is £3,300 for the selling of just one property. Surely a £3,000 fine is not unreasonable; we hope that it will send the right message. I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, this amendment seeks to increase the maximum amount of a penalty charge notice from £500 to £3,000. As noble Lords will remember, we discussed penalty charges in Grand Committee. As I said then, there needs to be a balance between the fine being a significant sum and our recognising that this is a fine that can be imposed on the spot with very little due process involved. We think that £3,000 goes far beyond what is reasonable for an on-the-spot fine and that a fine of that level would be appropriate to impose only after proceedings before a magistrates' court.
	In addition, in a magistrates' court, the magistrate can exercise judicial discretion on the level of the fine, taking into account the circumstances of the case, whereas under a fixed penalty scheme there is no scope for the exercise of discretion, and it would be unfair in principle to set a fixed penalty at such a high figure. That is not to say that estate agents should go unpunished. The ultimate penalty for not being a member of a redress scheme is, of course, loss of livelihood as a result of being banned.
	The maximum for a penalty charge notice under the Housing Act 2004 is £500. It seems sensible for the penalty charge regime under this Bill to be consistent with the regime under the Housing Act, which is why we believe that £500 would be reasonable here, too. Of course, an estate agent could be subject to more than one notice, each up to a maximum of £500.
	Another important point is that, although £500 may not appear at first glance to be a significant sum for estate agents, that does not ring true when we consider that a 2005 Key Note market report on estate agents found that 25 per cent of estate agency businesses did not make a profit in 2003-04. Also, many estate agency businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises. The OFT report quotes the Council of Mortgage Lenders research that found that 60 per cent of estate agents in England and Wales are small independent firms which tend to operate one office or a handful of offices in a local area.
	We may be willing to consider raising the penalty charge in an amendment perhaps along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Dubs in Committee. I hope that, in the light of that suggestion, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, will feel inclined to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I point out that the Question for Short Debate is now thelast business today. The time limit will be 90, not60, minutes and the limit for Back-Benchers' contributions is therefore nine minutes.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, along with international partners, to secure peace in Darfur.
	My Lords, I make no apology for asking the House to return again to the situation in Darfur. The only thing to have changed since my visit there in October 2004 has been the exponential increase in the number of fatalities. It is estimated that as many as 400,000 people havenow died as a result of the attacks, and more than2.5 million people have been driven from their homes and now require international assistance. There is documented evidence of rape and enforced disappearances, and 90 per cent of the villages in Darfur have been razed to the ground. The genocide has been orchestrated and perpetrated by the Sudanese Government-backed Janjaweed militia.
	The All-Party Group on Sudan, of which I am an officer, has documented these atrocities on a daily basis. Many of your Lordships recently attended the excellent briefings provided by the BBC World Service, sponsored by the all-party group. During that briefing, reference was made to the fragile situation in the south and the deteriorating situation in the east. My noble friend Lady Cox, who will speak later, has just returned from Sudan and will talk about the interaction of the situation in Darfur with the unfolding events elsewhere in Sudan. I am grateful to her and to other noble Lords for bringing their considerable expertise to tonight's debate.
	Among the many casualties of this conflict has been the credibility of the international institutions. The Security Council's authority has been seriously eroded; its impotence was graphically underlined by Jan Pronk, who recently wrote on his website:
	"Harassment of the UN Mission in Sudan has intensified during the last two months. Sudanese authorities can easily resort to such harassment, because they have not been challenged by UN Headquarters in New York, nor by the Security Council or by Governments of Member States. Some weeks ago one of our officials went to see the authorities in Darfur in order to raise a number of violations of human rights. The answer was exemplary of the self-confidence of those who have chosen to disregard ... criticism: 'You had better shut up"—
	they were told—
	"We can always expel you, as we have proven'".
	Those are the words of the former special representative of the United Nations; they are not from a journalist or just a rhetorical flourish. Contempt and defiance characterise the attitude of the Government of Sudan. That they have been allowed to behave with such impunity is a terrible indictment. This abject failure to protect is a parody of the UN's recently proclaimed doctrine, "The Duty to Protect". It has had devastating consequences for Darfur's indigenous people and is now having ramifications for humanitarian operations as well.
	Only today, the Associated Press reported on the withdrawal of Médecins du Monde—Doctors of the World. Eric Chevallier, its director, says that it has suspended its activities for an undetermined period. He adds:
	"The balance between the help we were able to provide and the risks our staff were taking had reached breaking point".
	The Associated Press also reported today a joint statement by six other groups, including Oxfam and CARE International, in which they say:
	"Aid workers are facing violence on a scale not seen before in Darfur, leaving access to people in need at the conflict's lowest point".
	The scale of the challenges faced by the humanitarian aid workers is graphically outlined in another joint statement, released on 17 January, by the 14 UN agencies operating in Darfur. They said:
	"In the last six months, 30 NGO and UN compounds were directly attacked by armed groups. More than 400 humanitarian workers have been forced to relocate 31 times from different locations ... Assets have been looted and staff threatened and physically harassed".
	In a plea to Governments around the world, the statement warns:
	"The humanitarian community cannot indefinitely assure the survival of the population in Darfur if insecurity continues".
	It calls for "decisive intervention". Tonight, the House will want to hear from the Minister what decisive action we are going to take to protect the people of Darfur and our aid workers, who are their lifeline.
	It is often suggested that one reason why the international community has permitted the Government of Sudan to behave with such impunity has been the gain to be made from what is euphemistically called "intelligence co-operation". Do we really believe that a country which harboured Osama bin Laden for five years and killed 2 million of its own people in the south is one with which we should be doing business at any level or one that could conceivably share in our values? History may well judge that we placed too much emphasis on erroneous attempts to gain intelligence while losing sight of the genocide, which continues to unfold before the eyes of the world.
	Africa's own assessment of the Government of President Omar al-Bashir was underlined yesterday by the African Union's very welcome decision to deny him the chairmanship of the AU in favour of President John Kufuor of Ghana—a good man and a good deed in a bleak world. We look forward to hearing from the Minister, who I know has just returned from the African Union meeting.
	In addition to strengthened international resolve, I particularly applaud the emergence of grassroots pressure groups and organisations such as Sudan Divestment UK. They are making an impact on the Sudanese Government where it hurts them most—their pockets. The Sudanese Government are dependent on foreign investment to implement their mission to eliminate the non-Arab population of Darfur. Since 2005, six US states have passed divestment legislation, replacing over $2 billion in affected securities. Currently, 25 additional US states are contemplating the enactment of similar laws.
	In the UK, there are five companies and a few dozen international companies operating in the Sudan that need to consider their investments and policies. The worst UK offenders are Petrofac and a subsidiary company of Rolls-Royce called Rolls-Royce: Marine. The Weir Group, White Nile Petroleum and AMEC also need to clarify their interests in Sudan. They should emulate the decision of Siemens last week, which announced its decision to divest, as did the London School of Economics students' union and, last night, the students' union of London University. New Hall College, Cambridge, has also endorsed divestment, and new campaigns are being started all across the country.
	In a letter to be published in the Times tomorrow, leading members of the youth wings of the major political parties—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, as well as the Greens and Fabians—say:
	"We call on companies that have commercial interests in Sudan to cease their financial support for the Government. Everyone can make a difference. This situation may seem overwhelming but the coalition against apartheid has shown that individual actions can and do make a difference".
	I am struck by the welcome lead that young people are taking. In the US, the Sudan Divestment Task Force, run mainly by student volunteers, has helped countless universities, companies and, more recently, the State of California, with its vast blue-chip industries, to divest billions of dollars from Sudan. Closer to home, I recently wrote to all members of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund asking whether our fund has holdings in companies operating in the Sudan. The chairman, Sir John Butterfill MP, has kindly undertaken to look into this matter at the next meeting.
	But there is also room for the Government to take some action. Does the Minister agree with the suggestion of the International Crisis Group that the Government should seek measures,
	"specifically targeting revenue flows from the petroleum sector",
	and,
	"foreign investment in, and the supply of goods and services to",
	that and associated sectors? Perhaps he will also tell us whether targeted sanctions against the four individuals named in Security Council Resolution 1672 have been taken, and what financial and travel-related sanctions have been taken against assets, security agencies and fraudulent charities identified by the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur.
	If sanctions and disinvestment are to be successful, there needs to be universal application. The danger is that the Chinese, who currently hold 40 per cent of the Sudanese oil industry, will fill the gap. In advance of President Hu's impending visit to China, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seek to persuade China to use its substantial leverage and certainly not to seek to profit as a result of US and European companies divesting. Certainly, the signals from Beijing seem hopeful in this regard.
	The evidence that genocide is occurring in Darfur is overwhelming. The UK must be prepared to take all possible steps to bring it to an end, and both the Government and their citizens have an important role to play.
	There are two other issues which I hope the Minister will also try to address this evening. First, in December last year, the Prime Minister expressed support for a no-fly zone over Darfur. Will the Minister tell us what progress is being made to bring that about? Secondly, will the Minister enlighten us as to the current standing of the peace negotiations and his assessments of last week's reported attacks in the north and south of Darfur? Three more villages have been obliterated in the north, and 200 people killed in the south.
	When I returned from my visit to Darfur in 2004, I asked the Government:
	"If this isn't genocide, what on earth is?".
	That question, along with many others, remains unanswered. The Prime Minister said that Darfur is,
	"a scandal; not a problem".
	The UN aid agencies have called for decisive intervention. I hope that tonight's debate will underline the urgent need to take concerted and decisive action.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is more than timely that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is once again drawing the House's attention to what remains, as it has been for several years, the greatest manmade humanitarian crisis facing the international community. Darfur regularly slips on and off our collective radar screen as other crises displace it, or our attention flags. Yet it remains an outstanding cause of shame and reproach to all those who have some capacity and responsibility to remedy the appalling situation in the west of Sudan. Each time the matter comes up in your Lordships' House, the Government's response tends to be along the lines of one of Britain's least good poets: it is no better, it is much the same. That cannot be all we have to say on the subject.
	It has been clear for a long time that protecting the people of Darfur from the harassment, displacement, rape and killing can be achieved only with the deployment of a substantial international peacekeeping force with a robust mandate and rules of engagement. For just as long, the Government of Sudan have manoeuvred, so far successfully, to prevent that happening. That is no disrespect to the African Union, which has tried hard to step into the breach, but a shortage of material resources and numbers have hampered its efforts. It is now clear that, on its own, it cannot and should not be expected to do the job.
	The idea of a hybrid UN/African Union force now being pursued seems genuinely admirable, so longas it is pursued energetically and is not, again, hamstrung by constraints placed upon it by the Government of Sudan. Perhaps the Minister can bring some encouraging news about the constitution and deployment of such a force. Will he also say whether a hybrid force like that proposed would be fully financed, as Kofi Annan's reform proposals of 2005 suggested, by UN-assessed contributions, without which we cannot possibly hope for the African Union to bear its part of the burden?
	A peacekeeping force is not all that is required, however. It is clearly also urgent to address the shortcomings of the peace agreement reached under the Abuja process, which resulted in some rebel movements not accepting that agreement. It is right to ask those movements to suspend their armed struggle and come to the conference table, but one can persuade them to do this only if there is a conference table to which they can come, and a forum in which they can discuss their criticisms of the earlier agreement. I believe that there is currently no such conference table or forum, but perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
	Then there is the problem of Sudan's western neighbours, Chad and the Central African Republic, which risk being destabilised by attacks launched across their borders. Has any consideration been given to preventively deploying some UN peacekeepers on the Chad and Central African side of the Sudanese border to discourage transborder operations in either direction? Such a deployment would not need the consent of the Sudanese Government, because it would not involve their territory.
	However, much revolves around the attitude of the Sudanese Government, which has hitherto been obstructive and unhelpful. Nothing will concentrate the minds of that Government more than a clear display of unity by the Security Council. Last summer's abstentions by China and Russia from the resolution authorising the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force, and their continuing resistance to bringing any effective pressure to bear on Khartoum, have encouraged the latter's obduracy. A further attempt must be made to create that essential unity. Instead of concentrating the discussion around economic sanctions, would it not be worth whilefor the Security Council to state formally and unanimously that it has a responsibility to protect the people of Darfur and intends to exercise it? That would clearly be seen as a warning that, in the absence of Sudanese co-operation, other measures would be considered. It might be worth trying such an approach before resorting to another discussion of economic measures.
	It is, in any case, clear that far more is at stakein Darfur than the lot of its people. This is thefirst clear-cut case of the responsibility of the international community to protect the citizens of a state which is either unwilling or unable to do so itself since that principle was established by the September 2005 UN summit. If the UN fluffs or fudges this test, the value of that breakthrough in international practice will be frittered away. If, on the other hand, the UN is able to give practical effect to that principle while working with the African Union, even late in the day, then many others in different parts of the world may be spared the fate suffered by the people of Darfur.
	In conclusion, it would be in order for a word of praise to be offered to the African Union for its decision to decline to allow President al-Bashir of Sudan to assume its presidency for the second year running. That decision, together with the choice of the democratically elected President of Ghana, is surely a sign of maturity and good judgment, justifying our real confidence in and support for the African Union. It also sends a strong message to the Government of Sudan that if they want to achieve international respectability and recognition, they must co-operate with the international community, not defy it. Let us hope that that message is received and acted upon.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton for once again bringing the tragedy of Darfur to our attention. He has cited the chilling details of what is happening there so comprehensively that not much more information needs to be added. I emphasise my strong support for his request for targeted sanctions, such as no-fly zones or the denial of visas to official representatives of the regime in Khartoum. I also support his plea for a greater disinvestment campaign. Such a campaign, implemented by official bodies and other influential groups such as churches, helped to bring an end to apartheid. I often wonder why we have been so slow to effect such a policy against the brutal regime in Khartoum, which benefits from international recognition and foreign investment even as it continues to kill its own people.
	I therefore ask the Minister why Her Majesty's Government give official invitations and red-carpet treatment to personnel such as the chairman of the Khartoum Chamber of Commerce. What will it take for Her Majesty's Government to refrain from doing business with those in Khartoum perpetrating their genocidal policies, with 2 million dead and 4 million displaced before the Darfur conflict, which has killed more people than the tsunami?
	As my noble friend indicated, I shall focus on some of the grave implications of the fall-out of the war in Darfur for the rest of Sudan. While resources and media attention are focused almost exclusively on Darfur, other dire and dangerous situations go unreported and unaddressed. As my noble friend said, I was in southern Sudan just l0 days ago for nearly two weeks, and saw many of the problems of the aftermath of decades of intense war: a devastated infrastructure of roads and public services such as healthcare and an urgent need for education for a generation of children denied access to schools, both during the war and today. There is also widespread concern that the Government in Khartoum are denying the south the resources needed for reconstruction to create disaffection with the Government of southern Sudan. They are thereby undermining the peace process by supporting militants and encouraging a process of Islamisation through strategic interventions.
	The lack of adequate healthcare was reflected in one of the most horrifying discoveries of our visit. In eastern Upper Nile, we were surrounded by naked children with severe malnutrition and preventable and treatable diseases who were receiving no treatment. Even more shocking was the discovery of leprosy. We took photographs and case studies to the leprosy centre in Yei, where staff agreed with the diagnosis of leprosy, which is possibly of pandemic proportions in eastern Upper Nile. In central Equatoria, we found people dying from other treatable diseases, such as measles and meningitis or from complications in childbirth because of lack of medical care or access to hospital. The problems caused by such acute shortages of essential resources are exacerbated by an influx of refugees from Darfur who, having fled from the horrors there, find further suffering in the devastation and deprivations of the south.
	It is also feared that the Government in Khartoum are deliberately and systematically destabilising the south by supporting militias and instigating recent outbreaks of fighting such as that in Malakal and the massacre outside Juba last October. Moreover, the large-scale immigration of newcomers from east Africa raises fears that some new immigrants represent a militant and strategic Islam which will affect the demographic structure of the south, changing its religious and ethnic composition before the referendum to determine its future, and therefore possibly affecting the outcome of that referendum. The south is in a geographically vulnerable position with Khartoum's influence on every border: there are many al-Qaeda militants in east Africa; on the southern border, the so-called Lord's Resistance Army, which is supported by Khartoum, is sustaining its terrorist policies in northern Uganda and southern Sudan, wreaking havoc; the genocidal conflict in Darfur is to the north; and Ethiopian militant rebels, also supported by Khartoum, are destabilising the eastern borderlands.
	The people of southern Sudan are Christians, Muslims and traditional believers, who have generally lived in peaceful coexistence. However, during recent years, they have been forced to defend a frontline against a militant Islam that would overrun southern Sudan and rapidly spread further. It has been claimed that it is only the resistance by southern Sudan that is preventing the Islamisation of the rest of Africa, down to Cape Town. For that reason there are real fears that the Government in Khartoum, having destroyed the way of life of the people of Darfur and left destroyed communities and structures everywhere, will do everything possible to prevent the development of a peaceful, stable, prosperous and democratic south.
	Therefore, the challenges confronting the south, such as the provision of adequate resources to rebuild devastated lands and lives, need to be addressed urgently if the peace, which was won at such a price, is not going to be lost in another war or exploited to fulfil an Islamist agenda that could spread not only through Sudan, but far beyond in Africa. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that Her Majesty's Government are addressing these problems and will not allow the focus on the horrors of Darfur totally to distract attention from the perilous and parlous state of much of the rest of Sudan.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we owe a tremendous debt to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has been indefatigable in raising the question of Darfur since before he went to the territory in 2004. He has repeatedly raised the matter in this House and never more graphically or passionately than he did this evening in a speech that was somewhat critical of the United Nations. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us a frank analysis of why it is taking so long to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1706, which was passed five months ago to strengthen UNMIS. In spite of the grave deterioration of the security and humanitarian positions in Darfur, the Security Council has yet to take firm action to shore up the AU force, to provide some protection for civilians facing attacks by Sudanese warplanes and the Janjaweed, or to bring greater pressure to bear on Khartoum than it has done so far to facilitate the deployment of the hybrid force, to which Khartoum agreed last August.
	Last week, the Leader of the House said that the new UN Special Representative for Darfur, Mr Jan Eliasson, was visiting the region and once his report was received, that would be the opportunity for the Security Council to look at the issue again. In fact, Mr Eliasson left Khartoum on 15 January, and there is still no sign of action by the Security Council or of any report to the Security Council by the Secretary-General based on Mr Eliasson's advice. Meanwhile, Sudanese bombers are killing villagers, displaced people are being attacked in the camps and, increasingly, aid workers and UN civilians are being physically assaulted and arrested by Khartoum's troops. The Minister, who has just returned from the African Union summit—as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out—will, no doubt, be able to tell us something about the timing of the next moves and what we can expect from the Security Council.
	The Secretary-General has expressed deep concern about the renewed use of bombers and has condemned the attacks on UN personnel and NGO and AU staff. It is worth reminding ourselves that over the past six months, 30 NGO and UN compounds have been attacked by armed groups,12 aid workers have been killed, five are missing, and hundreds of staff have had to be relocated for their own protection. However, their plight is as nothing compared with the decimation of the population. According to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, 400,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have been displaced. In addition, there are 90,000 displaced people in eastern Chad and 150,000 in the Central African Republic. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked what the United Nations is doing about those situations. I am aware that the Security Council and the AU have been looking at the inter-relationship between those conflicts because there was a presidential statement on 16 January about the continuing instability along the borders between the three states that referred to the preliminary recommendations on the deployment of a multi-dimensional United Nations presence in Chad and the Central African Republic and called for a report by the middle of February on the size, structure and mandate of such a presence. Is that work being aligned, as far as possible, with the planning for the hybrid force in Darfur and would it be sensible to look at common logistics for the three operations?
	Last August, following al-Bashir's refusal to accept a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur, the Security Council decided to strengthen the existing AU force by adding to it 17,300 military, 3,300 police and16 formed police units. No timetable was laid down for the deployment of these reinforcements, but three months went by and the only sign of movement was an agreement to set up a tripartite mechanism between the UN, the AU and Sudan to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1706 but in practice allowing Sudan a veto on the injection of any further international peacekeeping forces into Darfur. President al-Bashir wrote to the UN Secretary-General on 23 December reiterating his agreement to the first two stages of the UN proposal, but even the first stage of the proposal, the light support package, has yet to be completed because of Sudanese obstruction. It is expected that by tomorrow only47 UN military, 30 police and 10 civilians will have arrived, with another 20 scheduled to arrive by the end of January, which is about half the total numbers projected in the first phase of the operation.
	On 24 January, the UN Secretary-General wrote to President al-Bashir setting out the proposals for phase 2, which had been previously agreed by the UN and AU. At every stage, permission has to be sought from Khartoum. Even then, the arrangements for the transit of people and goods have to be accepted by Khartoum one at a time. At the tripartite meeting on 24 January, the discussion focused entirely on the implementation of the LSP, and when the Secretary-General met President al-Bashir last Sunday, he received no answer concerning the phase 2 proposals. The next chance to discuss that will not be until7 February, and it would be useful to have the Minister's assessment of the way forward. Are we going to have this perpetual postponement for weeks at a time of the arrangements for each of these phases?
	If the Sudanese continue to insist that the troops for the hybrid force must only be Africans, I suggest that the African states which have provided contingents to UNMIL, UNOCI and MONUC might be able to help, as those operations prepare to wind down; though in the near future, it will be very hard to expand the Darfur operation while at the same time getting a new peacekeeping operation under way in Somalia. President al-Bashir hasinsisted also, in his letter to the Secretary-General of 23 December, that the finalisation of the plans for the hybrid operation have still to be negotiated, including the size of the force. One obstacle has been cleared out of the way, as your Lordships have already heard in the debate, in that President al-Bashir will not become president of the AU for the next year; but it looks as though he is playing for time until the AMIS mandate runs out at the end of June.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the United Nations must take a robust line against the killers and the bullies who are holding a whole people to ransom. A few Apache ground attack helicopters would do wonders against the Janjaweed. If only a non-African state could provide such munitions, they could nevertheless be operated under the AU/UN memorandum of understanding of 25 November 2006. Experience shows clearly that when the hybrid force goes in, it needs a mandate that allows far more active military protection of civilians.
	Over the past three and a half years, as the crisis has escalated, it has been considered necessary to use kid gloves with the Sudanese Government over Darfur—first, to get their co-operation on signing the CPA, and, latterly, on implementing it. The time has come when the UN cannot allow Khartoum to block effective means of stopping mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, my noble friend has again done us and Sudan a service in drawing the acute humanitarian crisis in Darfur to our attention. He did so in Questions last week and has done so again today. The crisis afflicts not only refugees and displaced people but also humanitarian workers. It is of a different quality. UN agency appeals are coming out of Africa all the time, but it is rare to see adistress call such as we saw from 13 UN agencies on 17 January. They said that repeated military attacks, shifting front lines and the fragmentation of armed groups had compromised safe humanitarian access to the victims of the crisis, and that the,
	"humanitarian community cannot indefinitely assure the survival of the population in Darfur if insecurity continues".
	This war appears to be beyond anyone's control.
	My noble friend has already given the House the figures that show the appalling scale of suffering. Last week it was reported that another 5,000 people had fled their homes in west Darfur to seek refuge in two camps around El Geneina, adding to the millions displaced. Several violent incidents were reported in Darfur during the weekend following the UN appeal. According to the United Nations mission, an Antonov plane bombed Ein Siro, near Kutum, killing two civilians and livestock. The same day a UN contractor and an international NGO staff member were abducted. Earlier that weekend Sudanese government police officers had attacked staff from the United Nations, from the African Union mission and seven NGOs in south Darfur. The attack on20 staff and the subsequent arrests of some of them occurred in the state capital of Nyala, where they were apparently attending a social gathering.
	I spoke to an aid worker this evening who said that there was no respite from banditry, theft and attacks on NGO vehicles and other property; indeed these attacks are worsening. I hesitate to use the word "routine" but these routine attacks, especially continued aerial bombardment, which others have mentioned, once again call into question the Government of Sudan's ability to govern and their good faith in assisting the international community with humanitarian work in Darfur, including the return to peace talks.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, 12 relief workers have been killed in the past six months, more than in the previous two years combined. Their loss has directly hit humanitarian operations. The killing of three government water engineers in west Darfurin July 2006, for example, meant an immediate if temporary suspension of water and sanitation activities in the camps. Nine workers from the same government department were abducted in November, and five are still missing. The proportion of the affected population of Darfur judged "accessible" according to UN security standards has dropped to just 64 per cent, which apparently is the lowest access rate since 2004.
	The UN agencies say quite plainly that they cannot indefinitely assure the survival of the population. That is a stern warning. They, like the rest of us, are looking for immediate concrete steps from the signatories, and the non-signatories, of the Darfur peace agreement towards a peaceful settlement and the respect of international humanitarian law. I join my noble friend in asking the Government whether they will say to NATO that a no-fly zone could be an effective sanction if the Government of Sudan continue to resist the deployment of the strong phase 3 AU/UN hybrid peacekeeping force.
	I do not believe that the time has come for us to pull out of Sudan. We still have a lot of important British interests in Khartoum and our influence has been notable in helping to achieve the comprehensive peace agreement in the south, which is gradually bringing back hope to the people.
	As treasurer of the All-Party Group on Sudan, I am concerned that the Sudanese people and their Government should know that they have friends in this Parliament, and that the British public shouldbe informed as soon as possible of events and opportunities coming up in Sudan. But the Government of Sudan's failure to assist humanitarian agencies and their recent hostility towards some of them—notably the suspension by the Humanitarian Aid Commission last year of the well respected Sudan Social Development Organization—make it hard for the friends of Sudan to speak positively about developments in the country as we would like to do.
	This is not the time to make new suggestions about the intractable peace process, and I hope that the Minister will use every possible minute remaining to describe his recent experience. We should recognise that behind the scenes there are many experts from the embassies, the African Union and the UN working to get the talks going again, and it is no easy task. I will confine myself to a few questions. Can the Minister confirm that the Darfur-Darfur Dialogue and Consultation (DDDC) is a process towards a new peace agreement and must not be associated too closely with the old DPA, which is now discredited? Does he also agree that to avoid the mistakes of the last time there must be a greater effort not just to inform people but to ensure the fullest participation of local people through tribal leaders, mosques and local organisations? That was one of the failures of the last round which caused everything to fall apart.
	Can the Minister tell us which European countries are now actively engaged in the process, whether China has been approached and is included, and whether the dialogue process of the African Union is adequately funded? Finally, can the UK do anything to protest against the restrictions by the Humanitarian Aid Commission—which seem to contradict its terminology—on access to Darfur and its latest refusal even to issue or renew visas to development agencies working there?

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on bringing this debate before us tonight and on the most eloquent and forceful way in which he made the points to which we all listened and to which so many noble Lords have responded with equal concern.
	This is an ongoing debate. Only recently, on26 January, the Secretary of State for International Development, Mr Hilary Benn MP, issued a statement in response to the arrest of 20 UN, NGO and AU staff by the Sudanese police and national security on 19 January. He commented on their subsequent verbal and physical abuse, including sexual assault:
	"I utterly condemn these appalling attacks by the Sudanese authorities on those who are in Darfur to help the victims of the terrible conflict there. The Government of Sudan has an obligation to uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms to which it is committed by both peace agreements and international convention".
	On 23 January, in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lady Northover asked a Question about the response of the UK Government to the UN's warning that its agencies were having difficulty holding the line on Darfur. The Lord President of the Council, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, replied:
	"We are extremely worried about the humanitarian situation".
	She also said:
	"I utterly condemn the rising violence ... against aid workers ... struggling to deliver vital assistance to nearly 4 million people".—[Official Report, 23/1/07; col. 1002.]
	One cannot but agree absolutely with that condemnation and those sentiments, but we must press for action to match that condemnation. We need to be seen to be doing more than joining in the collective wringing of hands. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, called for all sides to provide safe and unhindered access throughout Darfur. She also noted that movement was slow in consolidating a ceasefire in a renewed political process and on the hybrid AU/UN peacekeeping force to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred.
	Will the Minister tell your Lordships' House whether there have been any signs in the past seven or 10 days of the Government of Sudan recognising any of their obligations, and any signs of a quickening of the movement on the issues to which the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, drew attention in your Lordships' House? I ask this in the light of two important events in relation to Darfur and Sudan in those seven to 10 days. First, and in particular, the African Union has again bypassed Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir in his bid to become chairman of the African Union because of the conflict in Darfur, as a result of enormous pressure from other African countries, the international community, aid agencies and so forth against the president's campaign.
	Secondly, Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, made a speech at the AU summit in Addis Ababa—the Minister attended that summit and may well have heard him in person—in which he called for the African Union to show a unity of purpose in bringing peace to Darfur. As war-torn Darfur is now considered to be the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, there is an urgent call for Africa's leaders to show the same unity of purpose and partnership with the UN that brought peace to Burundi and Sierra Leone. Mr Ban went on to say:
	"How Africa fares in reaching the Millennium Goals is a matter of life and death for millions of Africans. It is also a test of the ability of the UN to carry out the mandate our membership has given us. It will be one of my priorities to ensure that we meet that test and I will strengthen the organisation of the UN accordingly".
	Will the Minister tell us whether he agrees that if, as the UN says, Darfur is the world's largest humanitarian crisis, it is a touchstone to achieving the unity and commitment for which Mr Ban is calling? By the same token, should it not be the focus of additional UN resources that strengthening the organisation must imply? Does he also agree that the UK Government could, and I suggest should, address the effectiveness of the UN Human Rights Council? Is the Minister aware that the effectiveness of that council has been at issue since the rift developed between western members and African and Islamic states? Does he think that the council carries less weight now on this issue, particularly given its new composition? Does he therefore agree that the UK Government could be pressing the council to do more, outside as well as inside Darfur? Should the United Kingdom be pressing the council use its special procedures mechanisms to do more than simply appoint its country-specific rapporteur to investigate human rights abuses in-country in Sudan after receiving an invitation to do so, in due course reporting internally to the council? Should not the United Kingdom press the Human Rights Council to act now, without waiting for an invitation, by appointing a thematic rapporteur to investigate the wealth of evidence already in existence outside Darfur on extra-judicial killings and the violation of women, which continues to be rampant in Darfur?
	Most importantly, should not the United Kingdom Government emphasise that the benefits of having a thematic rapporteur who reports independently on the council's investigations and publishes its reports to the international community—not just internally reporting to the Human Rights Council, from whence it may never emerge—is a far more effective way of keeping the issues of Darfur on the centre of the international stage?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important topic. I also echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in praising the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his tireless work in trying to secure peace in Darfur. Much has been written and said in the media about the crimes of humanity occurring every day in the region of Darfur and the surrounding areas, but very little has been said on how these are to be stopped.
	As we have heard in this debate, the Sudanese Government must take a great deal of the responsibility for allowing the crisis to get to this state and for preventing the international community from taking steps to resolve it. It is very sad that more than 12 years after the genocide in Rwanda and more than 15 years after the genocide in the former Yugoslavia, international institutions are still not able to mobilise quickly and effectively to prevent similar crimes occurring in Sudan. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, opened this debate with a graphic description of the Sudanese Government's contempt and defiance, as he described it, of the international community.
	The militias, which are armed and given air support by the Sudanese Government, have perpetuated much of the violence towards civilians in Darfur and have led to the mass exodus of people from the area to overcrowded and ill-equipped refugee camps. The wilful obstruction and even expulsion of aid agencies operating there by the Government ensures that even these places of refuge are unable to offer much protection. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was right to describe this as one of the greatest humanitarian manmade crises facing the international community.
	Last year, there was a glimmer of hope when the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1706. This provided a clear duty on the international community to protect civilians under Chapter VII and authorised the deployment of UN troops into Darfur to stem the violence. It is doubly disappointing that this resolution has achieved so little, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out. If all it takes to prevent the UN enforcing Security Council resolutions is for the president of the culpable country to say "No, I don't want to let you in", we will never achieve anything. So what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to enforce this resolution? How are those responsible for the violence ever to be held to account before the International Criminal Court if the UN has so little power? The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is just back from two weeks in southern Sudan, in a very eloquent speech, gave the House some shocking examples of what this brutal regime is doing there.
	The consultation between the UN and the Sudanese Government, with the involvement of the African Union, was intended to find a way through the impasse. It was to decide how UN troops could support and reinforce African Union troops on the ground. Instead, it seems to have resulted in the effective dismissal of the resolution. Certainly it does not look as if UN troops will be on the groundin meaningful numbers or with any command independence any time soon.
	It is all very well to say that these things take time, but as time passes and nothing is done, the violence grows and spreads, and yet more people suffer. The longer it takes for UN troops to be deployed in Darfur, the worse the situation will become, and the less chance the UN will have of resolving the crisis. Can the Minister reassure the House that initiatives at the UN level will achieve something and that this Government are using every means at their disposal to keep the pressure up? In a Statement on international development in July, the Secretary of State mentioned the need for,
	"an integrated UN humanitarian system that responds faster when crisis strikes".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/06;col. 1493.]
	What steps have been taken to achieve this?
	It is unfortunate that the failings of the UN are being highlighted because of the failings of another international institution, the African Union. The lack of competence of this body is clear; its troops are unable to maintain the peace in Darfur while suffering under poor command, limited logistics and low morale. In the DfID report, Making Governance Work for the Poor, Her Majesty's Government promised to work actively to increase the capacity of organisations such as the AU. It would appear that any steps the Government might have taken to improve the AU's capacity have been woefully ineffective. I, like all other speakers, also applaud the AU's decision this week to give the chair to Ghana and not to Sudan. I hope that this will send a strong signal to the Government in Khartoum as to how their actions in Darfur are viewed by many other countries.
	The crisis in Darfur is not an isolated situation. It is already affecting neighbouring countries via refugees, and now we are seeing cross-border attacks on refugee camps in Chad. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of the "distress call" sent out by the aid agencies. There are also worrying signs that Darfur is destabilising the fragile peace in south Sudan. Can the Minister reassure the House that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to prevent that region also falling back into civil war with all the attendant horrors and deaths that that will entail?
	The situation at the grass roots is no more optimistic than at the international or national levels. The recent arrests of 20 relief workers, accompanied by beatings and sexual assault, show the difficulties of even non-military intervention and aid. This atmosphere of violence and lawlessness is leading not only to immense difficulties for aid agencies and NGOs, but is also perpetuating and deepening a culture of violence and discrimination against women. There has already been a great deal of concern about women's rights in Sudan. There are very few countries where female genital mutilation is so widely practised, and women remain unequal under even the letter of the law, let alone the practice. The use of mass rape as a weapon of war and a method of destroying communities has been appallingly effective in traumatising families and I have nothing but admiration for the people who are attempting to help those in the refugee camps and the remaining villages, but they need far more than supportive words from this country. Are we working with human rights groups in Sudan to address the enormous inequalities suffered by women and other vulnerable groups, even in the more peaceful areas of the country?
	I look forward to the Minister's response and hope that he will be able to show the House some concrete advances made by the international community towards securing peace in Darfur. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, the people of Darfur have suffered too much devastation and too much loss of life.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the House has rightly thanked the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for once again raising these vital issues. I join in that and thank all other noble Lords who have spoken. This has to be one of the top concerns for all of us world wide, and as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said in his closing remarks, we have little time to get this right. The Government remain gravely concerned about Sudan and about Darfur in particular, and about achieving a resolution to the crisis. It is one of our highest foreign policy priorities. I feel strongly about this, as noble Lords will know, from my own experiences of Darfur and of Juba in the south, where I have seen many of the same things described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I share her sense of horror. I have just returned from the African Union summit in Addis Ababa and I want to share with the House some of the stark realities as they are today. Indeed, I will be going back to Africa tomorrow night to continue some of this work.
	I held discussions in Addis Ababa with a number of African leaders, including President Konare of the African Union and Foreign Minister Lam Akol of Sudan, and with representatives of all the regional neighbours who were available, which unfortunately did not include Chad.
	This response to your Lordships' debate must be utterly hard-headed. I start by welcoming John Kufuor's election. He is a decent man who will be good for the AU. The AU has been trying to build a solid international reputation for decades; it could have lost it in half an hour.
	The Government are at the forefront of the international efforts to resolve the Darfur conflict and to sustain the increasingly fragile north-south peace, achieved at the cost of so many lives. I will return to that point. We are the largest bilateral donor to Darfur. So far we have contributed £190 million and our commitment remains undiminished. In addition to providing aid, our aim is also to achieve peace and security through a viable political process. The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Luce, referred tothe international community's responsibilities in this endeavour in the region. It is, of course, the international community and the regional communities that we need to be active.
	The basis of a peace agreement was signed in Abuja in the first week of last May, with the important involvement throughout of my right honourable friend Hilary Benn MP. It agreed a ceasefire, although not all of the rebel forces signed; set out a path of reconstruction and compensation; and provided for AMIS, the AU force, to step up peace and security arrangements. Whatever may be said, AMIS had for some time done a job which was very hard and demanding, and that should be acknowledged. The Government of Sudan agreed to disarm the Janjaweed.
	However, significant terms of the agreement were breached more or less immediately and it became clear that, after a more diligent start than is sometimes acknowledged, the AMIS force became too weak. It was too poorly led and without a strong enough mandate. All of that is true, and all of it has been said by the African Union itself. AMIS could not halt the growing violence of the Government of Sudan, the Janjaweed or the many rebel groups. Let us be clear: they all have blood on their hands—mostly the blood of innocent Darfurians; AU troops, many of whom have been killed; and NGO staff.
	The Government took the lead again last August in the negotiations at the Security Council that led to Resolution 1706, which mandated a strong and effective UN peacekeeping force. We did not achieve the support of China and Russia although, in the final analysis, they did not oppose it. As the issue of China has been raised by many noble Lords, I should inform the House that we are in constant dialogue with the Chinese about what they can do. Even if they look at the situation in the narrowest commercial sense, the instability of the country must make their investments look, day by day, more liable to fall apart than succeed. But China is also now a great world power, and with that comes a responsibility which goes further than commercial interests.
	More critically, the Government of Sudan refused to consent, after the UN resolution, to a UN mission. It was clear from African Union forces and their commanders in the area that if there was to be an African force, or a predominantly African force—which of course is the ideal—it would not be able to fight its way across and into Sudan. That is not a possibility in the present circumstances.
	Several UN ministers worked on this matter in New York and later in Khartoum, but President al-Bashir has been adamant. Indeed, his helicopter gunships, fixed-wing Antonov bombers and ground troops, in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1591 and all subsequent agreements, have, with Janjaweed help, continued to kill and maim. But they are not the only people to have done so; so have the rebel groups.
	The international community sought another viable way, trying to move forward as the fighting spread again into Chad, as has been said, and the Central African Republic, trailing displaced and destitute people in its wake. On 16 November 2006, Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for International Development, attended a prolonged negotiation in Addis Ababa, chaired by Kofi Annan, between the Government of Sudan and the international community. It agreed another way forward: first, an effective ceasefire; secondly, a renewed political process; thirdly, effective peacekeeping forces to monitor both. It also needed a stronger mandate, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, and that was also agreed.
	The negotiation ended with al-Bashir's opposition to the UN remaining firm. It was agreed that the peacekeeping required a three-phase system with UN involvement, starting with a light package of advisers to AMIS. As the noble Lord said, that is happening, but slowly. However, we might as well be blunt and honest about this: that is because the UN has moved painfully slowly, as well as because of al-Bashir's confrontational attitude.
	Still, growing numbers are now in Darfur in the light package. A heavy mission is next, with significant numbers of UN troops, preferably from Africa, to bolster AMIS. Negotiations are relatively well advanced on that, but again there is a lack of urgency on all sides, including at the UN, over critical issues such as the funding of such a force. Finally, the aim of the Addis negotiation is a hybrid AU/UN force for Darfur of about 17,000 troops and 3,000 police, with serious command and control, logistics backup, heavy lift including helicopters and agreed systemsof troop rotation. We and our allies stand ready to back that, although we would have preferred a straightforward UN force—as would the AU.
	Discussions on this issue are also plainly too slow. I know that it breaks new ground at the UN to fund troops of another organisation—the AU, in this case—but a bureaucratic argument about that would be unforgivable. Ban Ki Moon, the new Secretary-General, has promised new energy and greater effort. I intend to go on behalf of the Government to New York to press this vigorously. People cannot be allowed to continue to die against the backdrop of arcane exchanges about funding modalities. These issues have to be resolved.
	President al-Bashir agreed the outline plan I have described, and some things have moved, as I have said—but his aircraft are still hitting civilians and seem well co-ordinated with militias, from whom not one weapon has been removed. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, asks, reasonably enough, whether there are any signs of progress. Foreign Minister Lam Akol told me last Friday that the Government of Sudan will not meet their Abuja commitments while the rebels continue to fight. No one will be disarmed, whatever the promises, and, he says, against this dire background, and despite everything we may think in your Lordships' House, everything is going very well in Darfur. There is no real violence, plenty of food, no NGO in peril. Someone described that to me as a senior Minister being in denial. I must tell your Lordships' House that my view is far darker than that.
	The timetable is clear: the light force now, while the heavy force is intended in the spring—probably April, if it can be funded properly. The hybrid UN process is still under discussion for the reasons I have described. In the mean time, the United Kingdom has pledged a further £15 million to AMIS to keep it going. So far we have given AMIS £67 million, and we are pressing everyone else in the European Community and elsewhere.
	We are backing the UN/AU peace initiative to bring the rebel forces back to negotiation. It needs the sort of machinery the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, described, but that is potentially there, led by Jan Eliasson and Dr Salim Salim. Our special representative to Sudan, Christopher Prentice, is there in full support, and that work has started—too slowly, but it has started.
	Leaders of the Sudan Liberation Movement are meeting with the intention of reunifying their fragmenting movement. We support the UN Secretary-General's assessment mission to Chad to consider how to introduce the peacekeeping force there. The report is expected in February. I do not believe there will be much integration because of the objections of the Sudan, but that is no reason not to protect the people of Chad.